SPECIAL ISSUE: TRANSLATION IN IBERIAN-SLAVONIC CULTURAL EXCHANGE AND BEYOND
/International Society for Iberian-Slavonic Studies /Research Group CLEPUL 5 â€“ Iberian-Slavonic Interculturality /Commission for Iberian-Slavonic Comparative Research at the International Committee of Slavists
IberoSlavica Special Issue on Translation in Iberian-Slavonic Cultural Exchange and beyond
Title: IberoSlavica. Special Issue: Translation in Iberian-Slavonic Cultural Exchange and beyond Coordination: Beata Cieszy nska Guest Editors: Teresa Seruya and Hanna Pie ta Composition: Lus da Cunha Pinheiro Centro de Literaturas e Culturas Lusofonas e Europeias, Faculdade de Letras da Universidade de Lisboa | Instituto Europeu de Ciencias da Cultura Padre Manuel Antunes | CompaRes Associacao Internacional de Estudos Eslavos Lisbon, December 2015 ISBN 978-989-95444-3-7 This publication was funded by National Funds through the FCT - Fundacao para a Ciencia e a Tecnologia under the Project UID/ELT/00077/2013.
Teresa Seruya and Hanna Pie
IberoSlavica Special Issue on Translation in Iberian-Slavonic Cultural Exchange and beyond
CompaRes / CLEPUL Lisbon 2015
Table of contents Welcome
Beata Cieszy nska . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Teresa Seruya, Hanna Pie ta . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Translation in Iberian-Slavonic Cultural Exchange and beyond: An Introduction Part I Submission or Resistance?: Translating Soviet Russia
Brian James Baer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Aleksei Semenenko . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Ventsislav Iko . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Jaroslav Spirk . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
The Steadfast Prince of Denmark: Boris Pasternak's Last Translation
An Overview of Bulgarian Literary Translations into Spanish and Catalan (1887-2012) Indirect Translations, Censorship and Non-translation: The Reception of Czech and Slovak Literature in 20th -century Portugal
Henryk Sienkiewicz, el Autor Polaco Mas Publicado y Peor Traducido en Espa na, y su Impacto en la Prensa Espa nola de Principios del Siglo XX
Bo zena Zaboklicka . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113
As Literaturas Eslavas em Portugal durante o Estado Novo: Ensaio Bibliograco
Teresa Seruya, Maria Lin Moniz . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 131
Part II Figuring out the Local within the Global: (Sub)systems and Indirect Translation
Martin Ringmar . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 153
Europe's Conquest of the Russian Novel: The Pivotal Role of France and Germany
Pieter Boulogne . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 179
Translating Polish Prose in France in 1945-2009: Politics, Economy, Consecration
El zbieta Skibi nska . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 207
Notes on contributors and editors
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 231
Welcome to the Special Issue of the IberoSlavica Yearbook, which on this occasion discusses essential angles of Translation in Iberian-Slavonic Cultural Exchange and beyond. This issue has been prepared by our Guest Editors, Teresa Seruya and Hanna Pie ta. The present publication emerged as fruits of collaboration among the three institutions promoting Iberian-Slavonic Studies in Portugal and worldwide, and some other entities, dedicated to Translation Studies, that directly or indirectly inspired a more systematic reection on Translation from an Iberian-Slavonic perspective. The rst group consists of CompaRes International Society for Iberian-Slavonic Studies; the Research Group CLEPUL5 Iberian-Slavonic Interculturality, belonging to the Centre for Lusophone and European Literatures and Cultures of the Faculty of Letters of the University of Lisbon (CLEPUL), and CISCR-ICS Commission for Iberian-Slavonic Comparative Research at the International Committee of Slavists; the second is represented above all by the University of Lisbon Centre for English Studies CEAUL. The years 2010-2013 were particularly fruitful in searching for Iberian-Slavonic dimensions in translation. It is already the tradition that in its every issue the Yearbook IberoSlavica tends to include the newest proposals on Iberian-Slavonic Translation in theory and practice as a separate section/dossier Translation Studies. Such interest within the Iberian-Slavonic Studies received additional impulse when the initiatives of CompaRes, CLEPUL 5 and CISCR-ICS, in cooperation with the Portuguese Association of Translators (APT), joined the European Platform of Literary Translation PETRA, gaining in that way the possibility to check the pursuit of methodology from a wider, European perspective.
The year 2012 was extremely important in this process, as it was dedicated to the launching of the research Group of CompaRes on Iberian-Slavonic Translation Studies (www.iberian-slavonic.eu/ViewContent/ 4), on the basis of the annual activity of CompaRes, CLEPUL5 and CISCR ICS, which was the 6th International Conference in the series Iberian and Slavonic Cultures in Contact and Comparison (University of Lisbon, Faculty of Letters 8-9 May, 2012). The Conference was entitled Dialogues through Translation, and subtitled by marking its debate's main direction: Towards a Special Issue of IberoSlavica, the Yearbook of CompaRes, CLEPUL5 and CISCR-ICS. This research meeting was, as usual, the main event of the Week of Iberian-Slavonic Cooperation at the University of Lisbon. In such a way, the research meeting was accompanied by some cultural events, such as an Evening of Iberian-Slavonic Poetry in Translation, prepared by the teachers and students of the Centre for Slavic Languages and Cultures from the Department of Romance and General Linguistics of the Faculty of Letters, UL, and patronised by the Embassies of Slavonic Countries in Lisbon, as well as the round table debate (Translation of Slavonic literatures in Portugal. Overview and perspectives. Discussing aims and goals of the European Platform for Literary Translation PETRA), run by Joao Almeida Flor (CEAUL). This debate included the participation of translators (Teresa Fernandes, Mateja Rozman, Zlatka Timenova, Nina and Filipe Guerra; Annabela Rita (APT)) and representatives of Portuguese publishing houses (Cavalo de Ferro, Dom Quixote, CompaRes and Pearlbooks ). There were also two other related events which highlighted our main objective in the Iberian-Slavonic Week at the UL: the exhibition presenting main recent translations between Portugal and Slavonic Countries, and the Workshop on Iberian-Slavonic translation (run by Zlatka Timenova, CSLC-DRGL/CLEPUL, FLUL). There could be, however, no doubt, that the core role within our investigation into Iberian-Slavonic dimensions in Translation Studies turned out to be this exceptional work of our Guest Editors of the present Special Issue: Teresa Seruya (University of Lisbon / Catholic University of Portugal / Research Centre for Communication and Culture) and Hanna Pie ta (CEAUL). www.clepul.eu
This peer-reviewed collection, focused on the mapping and analysis of the translation exchange between Iberian and Slavonic cultures, oers contributions dealing with empirical and theoretical issues and includes both panoramic and single case studies. With its articles grouped into two parts: Translation in Iberian-Slavonic cultural exchange and Translation beyond Iberian-Slavonic cultural exchange, this Special Issue of IberoSlavica refers to the variety of text types, Iberian-Slavonic language pairs, degrees of indirectness and translation directions. The editors of IberoSlavica believe that the contributions gathered here, dealing with translation in Iberian-Slavonic cultural transfer (and beyond), will provide a signicant reference point within both elds, those of Translation Studies and Iberian-Slavonic Studies, and will generate new waves of Iberian-Slavonic dialogues through translation.
Editor-in-chief Beata Cieszy nska
Translation in Iberian-Slavonic Cultural Exchange and beyond: An Introduction Teresa Seruya University of Lisbon / Catholic University of Portugal / Research Centre for Communication and Culture firstname.lastname@example.org
Hanna Pie ta University of Lisbon Centre for English Studies email@example.com
Abstract The discipline of Iberian-Slavonic Studies has traditionally shown little interest in the concept of translation. Translation Studies, too, have seldom been interested in systematic exploring and theorizing translation between Iberian and Slavonic languages. While the intersection of these two disciplines is still largely uncharted, this article argues that its exploration can inspire innovation in both translation and Iberian-Slavonic research. To do so, this paper oers a number of insights into the benets of exploring this area. Keywords Centre-periphery relations, Iberian-Slavonic Studies, Interdisciplinarity, Translation Studies.
Teresa Seruya, Hanna Pie ta
Iberian-Slavonic Studies is a research area concerned with the study of multifaceted relations between Slavonic and Iberian societies, cultures, languages and their histories (Pie ta 2011). Translation Studies, for its part, is a discipline which studies phenomena associated with translation in its many forms (Munday 2010). The intersections and overlap between the two elds of research are therefore obvious, at least in terms of interests and objects of study. This notwithstanding, researchers in Iberian-Slavonic Studies have traditionally shown little interest in the concept of translation (but see, for instance Gonzalo de Jesus 2007, Medvedec 2007 and Ramsak 2010 for a handful of more recent studies). Translation scholars, too, have seldom been interested in systematic exploring and theorizing translation between Iberian and Slavonic languages (although, of course, contributions on translations involving languages with a low capacity of cultural exportation can be considered, to a certain degree, as preliminary eorts in this direction; in this respect see, e.g., Branchadell and West 2005, Casanova 2002 and 2004, Cronin 1995, 2009a and 2009b, Heilbron 1999 and 2010, Asad cited in Wolf 1995). As a result, despite its importance, the role of direct and indirect translation in the exchange between Iberian and Slavonic cultures remains largely uncharted. Yet the intersection of Translation and Iberian-Slavonic Studies can be a fascinating eld to explore. First and foremost, it may bring new insights into the way in which cultural relations between and among the so-called dominated (Casanova 2002), less-translated (Branchadell and West 2005), minor (Cronin 2009a), (semi)peripheral (Heilbron 1999), weak (Asad cited in Wolf 1995) or target-language intensive (Cronin 1995) languages is shaped. By doing so, this intersection has the potential to provide a better understanding of the complex role of intermediary centres (Casanova 2004), such as London, Frankfurt, Paris or Moscow, in the literary inter-peripheral transfers. Likewise, it may challenge our current knowledge on the concept of indirect translation, typically understood as translation based on a source (or sources) which is itself a translation into a language other than the language of the original, or the target language (Kittel and Frank 1991: 3). Moreover, it is likely to shed new light on the mechanisms of translation transfer between ideologically antagonistic regimes, as has been the case, for exwww.clepul.eu
Translation in Iberian-Slavonic Cultural Exchange and Beyond
ample, of the communist Eastern Bloc countries (Ramet 1998) and the para-fascists Spain and Portugal (Grin 1991). All in all, an in-depth study of Iberian-Slavonic translations may inspire innovation in both translation and Iberian-Slavonic research. This special issue is considered a foray into this largely uncharted territory. Accordingly, its purpose is twofold. On the one hand, it intends to showcase, raise the prole and bring to the attention of a readership in Iberian-Slavonic Studies the work of researchers in Translation Studies who look into Iberian-Slavonic literary transfers. On the other hand, this special issue means to foreground selected areas researched in the framework of Translation Studies that can be of particular interest to scholars working in Iberian-Slavonic Studies (such as censorship, indirect translation or power relations between centres and peripheries). If, following John F. Kennedy's inaugural address, we were to reduce these two objectives to a single question, it would have the following wording: what can Translation Studies do for Iberian-Slavonic Studies? The papers in this collection, authored by a mixture of established and emerging researchers in Translation Studies, address this question from a variety of viewpoints. Before looking into each contribution individually, we will rst try to look at them collectively, so as to highlight and tie together some of the most salient points emerging from the various papers in relation to the central theme of the volume.
1. The Special Issue viewed as a whole To make the research results available to a wider readership, the majority of papers in this volume is in English. However, in an eort to help Translation Studies gain a truly global character and turn them into a linguistically and culturally balanced discipline (and not one outright dominated by English), two papers were deliberately written in other languages (namely Portuguese and Spanish). Broadly viewed, this volume consists of two main parts. The rst part, forming the bigger portion of this volume, presents a variety of general overview and specic case studies referring to dierent Iberian-Slavonic language pairs, literary modes, degrees of indirectness and www.lusosoa.net
Teresa Seruya, Hanna Pie ta
translation directions. Collectively, these studies show not only what Iberian-Slavonic translations have in common but also how they dier from one another. All the articles in this section use the Iberian-Slavonic context as a touchstone. However, in line with the title of this special issue, they also move beyond it by addressing a set of issues that are typical also of interchanges between and among other cultures. Accordingly, when viewed as a whole, these pieces underline the importance of a closer examination of concepts such as censorship, indirect translation and centre-periphery power relations in the context of Iberian-Slavonic transfers. Moreover, while some of the articles are focused on detailed textual analysis and others on contextual data, they are all historically oriented and share a methodological commitment to empirical analysis. Similarly, all contributions in this section deal in some way with the mapping and analysis of literary transfer. Thus, in response to the question mentioned above (what can Translation Studies do for Iberian-Slavonic Studies?), we would argue that this section demonstrates how Translation Studies can help in lling the historiographical gap in the world map of Iberian-Slavonic literary interchange. As far as the second section is concerned, it presents contributions on translations between Nordic languages (Danish, Finnish, Icelandic, Norwegian and Swedish) as well as translations from Slavonic languages (Polish and Russian) into central, and hence potential intermediary, languages (French and German). In the rst instance, these contributions may seem out of step with the central theme of this special issue, concerned mainly with Iberian-Slavonic cultural exchange. However, they were deliberately selected, in keeping with the title of this volume, to extend our collective vision beyond the Iberian-Slavonic context. Accordingly, one of the points we hope this section will make is that most of the issues that emerge in research on Iberian-Slavonic translations are also present in translations including other peripheral language groups (while this may seem like overstating the obvious to Translation Studies scholars, it may not seem clear to researchers in Iberian-Slavonic Studies). To put it dierently, while drawing on non-Iberian-Slavonic language combinations, these studies further articulate and mobilize some of the most salient issues raised in the rst section (such as the already mentioned concepts of censorship, indirect translation and centre-periphery www.clepul.eu
Translation in Iberian-Slavonic Cultural Exchange and Beyond
power relations). Thus, in an eort to answer the question formulated above (what can Translation Studies do for Iberian-Slavonic Studies?), we would argue that this section shows that Translation Studies can bring expert knowledge on topics that are (bound to become) of vital importance to Iberian-Slavonic scholars. It is obvious to the guest-editors that these contributions will in no way exhaust the debate that has now been initiated. In fact, many Iberian and Slavonic languages have not entered this collection (e.g. Belarusian, Galician, Macedonian, to name but a few), an absence which is perhaps due to a fragmentation of research on the topic here addressed. Furthermore, this volume clearly raises more questions than it yields answers. Some collateral questions that emerge from this collection are as follows: what can Iberian-Slavonic Studies do for Translation Studies? which forms of theorising, issues of methodology, data collection, etc., can arise from combining the two areas of study? are Iberian-Slavonic translations dierent from other interperipheral translations? If so, how? However, we do hope that other collections might follow or that others will pick up where we leave o and continue the discussion. In other words, we hope that, with the help of this special issue, translation will become more central to work in Iberian-Slavonic Studies and that research in Translation Studies will expand its interest to systematically cover the complexities of Iberian-Slavonic cross-cultural exchange.
2. Brief summary of articles in this Special Issue Part I of this Special Issue is dedicated to Translation in Iberian-Slavonic cultural exchange and presents as rst case-study the work of Brian Baer, who writes about the complex nature of translation as an act of both submission and resistance in Soviet Russia, where writers were de-authorized as translators, but translators were also reauthorized as writers. Such was the case with the reception of Don www.lusosoa.net
Teresa Seruya, Hanna Pie ta
Quixote, a most popular novel, due to the fact that Marx had written favorably about Cervantes and the Renaissance in general, viewed as a metaphor for the new Soviet society. Don Quixote was thus both politicized and russied. Baer analyses two dramatic adaptations of the novel, Bulgakov's (1938) and Evgenii Shvarts' (1957), as a screenplay. In 1937 Bulgakov was commissioned to produce a free dramatization of the text with the result that some of the best known passages of the play had particular resonance in Stalinist Russia against the backdrop of the Great Purge of 1936-1938. Moreover, due to the fact that Bulgakov explores common themes in his translation/adaptation and in his original writing, boundaries between translation and authorship become blurred. Shvarts's lm adaptation became very popular in post-war Russia, reecting on the cultural and political thaw of the post-Stalinist era under Khushchev. Semenenko's essay focuses on one of Boris Pasternak's lesser-known translations - his rendition of Calderon de la Barca's The Steadfast Prince (El Prncipe Constante ) (1629). When Pasternak was oered a contract in 1959 for a new translation of Calder on's play he had been for a long time an ideologically suspicious author, whose original work and translations could not be published, leaving him with no income to support his family. Between the 1930s and 1950s he had been a frequent Shakespeare translator, Hamlet being his favorite play, to the point that Semenenko speaks of Pasternak's `Hamletism'. On studying his translation of Calderon's play, Semenenko identies several intermediate translations which, however, are not responsible for the `deviations' from the original. They are mainly due to the adaptation of Calderon's text to Pasternak's Hamletism and the transformation of a Portuguese prince into a Hamlet-like gure, which is argued around the theme of self-sacrice which united both princes. An overview of Bulgarian literary translations into Spanish and Catalan from 1887 (the year of the rst known translation) to 2012 is provided by Iko. A long list of sources results in a corpus of 183 editions published in Spanish or Catalan, not only in Spain and Spanish speaking countries of Latin American but also in Bulgaria (by state publishing houses) and even in Germany and Austria. Iko stresses particularly how Bulgaria came to gain symbolic capital through the production and www.clepul.eu
Translation in Iberian-Slavonic Cultural Exchange and Beyond
spread of books for children and young people, partly in collaboration with Havana's children's books editing house Nueva Gente. Of course this investment was to a great extent part of an ideological agenda, since children's literature, as Iko stresses, could be used as a tool of indoctrination and improve the image of the Bulgarian communist system. The second preferred type of text for exportation was the historical and detective novel. Interestingly enough, many translators were Bulgarian; when it came to native Spanish speakers they were of Cuban origin. The last section of the essay proposes a periodization for the history of translation of Bulgarian literature in Spain. The reception of Czech and Slovak literature in 20th -century Portu gal is the subject of Spirk 's contribution to the present volume. Ideology, censorship and indirect translation are the main topics of the study. As regards the inuence of political factors in the translation ow, Spirk
observes how Slovak literature was received most warmly in Portugal in the wake of the Prague Spring, but translation from Czech or Slovak did not thrive in the turbulent years of 1974-76 in Portugal, following the Carnation Revolution. The Czechoslovak communist regime, however, did not fail to produce scores of translations of agitprop brochures into Portuguese (at a time when there were strong political ties between both Communist Parties). The third part of the study deals with the successful O Valente Soldado Chveik [The Good Soldier Svejk ], an indirect translation from French (1971). Censorship and non-translation are the subject of the last section, concluding, among other things, that while the overall average of authorised books was 64.54%, only 36.36% of books relating to Czechoslovakia were allowed to circulate in Portugal, although the percentage is rather friendlier (50%) regarding ction. Zabocklicka studies the reception of Sienkiewicz in the Spanish press at the beginning of the 20th century. He was the most frequently translated and published Polish author in Spain, although his translations left much to be desired, as they were mainly extracts from the contents and revealed nothing of the author's style. His fame and popularity came to Spain via Paris, which was not unusual at the time. When Quo vadis? was published (1900) Polish literature was almost unknown in the country, but the success came quickly and left Spanish intellectuals amazed. Zabocklicka concentrates on the important role www.lusosoa.net
Teresa Seruya, Hanna Pie ta
of Emilia Pardo Bazan, who introduced Naturalism in Spain, as the main agent responsible for making Sienkiewicz well-known among the reading public. However, she herself did not trust the expurgated, truncated Spanish translations. Zaboblicka's question about the tremendous success of Quo vadis? until today is partially answered with the lm adaptations of the work. Sienkiewicz is continuously present in publishing houses'catalogues, also during the Franco period. More than thirty dierent translations of Quo vadis? are a clear sign of the author's popularity. Seruya and Moniz present a rst bibliographical essay on Slavonic literatures in Portugal during the Portuguese dictatorship (Estado Novo, 1926-1974). Firstly, Casanova's terminology (dominant/dominated languages) is discussed in its application to Portuguese and the Slavonic languages. Additionally, the perception in Portugal of the Communist countries and languages behind the `Iron Curtain' is described. The introduction closes with the statement that Portuguese and Slavonic languages are two linguistic and cultural peripheries, the relationship of which is not governed by a hierarchy. The bibliographical survey presents data on: the presence of Slavonic literatures in comparison with Spanish and French source texts; Slavonic literatures in translation (Russia leads with 89%); Slavonic authors per decade, with an enormous increase from the 1950s to the 1960s (mainly in the translation of Russian authors). Several lists identifying authors from each language/country follow: from Russia, Poland, Czechoslovakia and ex-Jugoslavia. Regarding Bulgaria, only one anthology of short stories was so far registered. The contents of nine anthologies by Slavonic authors published during the Estado Novo are also displayed. Finally, information is given on ocial censorship (1934-1974) exerted upon books (421, of which only half were literature) coming from European Communist regimes. Part II is dedicated to translation beyond Iberian-Slavonic cultural exchange and starts with Ringmar's thorough analysis of the `global translation system' in its local details, as exemplied by the Nordic subsystem, which is characterised by intensive `internal translation' between its three central languages forming a `semi-domestic' market with approximately 20 million speakers. Another purpose of the article is to emphasize the relation between hierarchical systems and indirect transwww.clepul.eu
Translation in Iberian-Slavonic Cultural Exchange and Beyond
lation. On examining the position of Nordic languages in the subsystem he concludes that the hyper-central Swedish is everywhere more translated than the central Danish and Norwegian, which, in turn, are well ahead of the peripheral Finnish and Icelandic. Indeed, parameters such as geographic and/or linguistic proximity seem to favour translation, resulting in his nding that half the Nordic translation export is in fact inter-Nordic. As for the practice of indirect translation, Ringmar observes that it is not always caused by a lack of knowledge in certain source languages but sometimes rather prompted by the prestige of the meditating language and its literary models, as is the case of recent indirect translation into Swedish even of literature in well-known original languages, in spite of the fact that direct translation has become nowadays a `genuine option'. On the other hand, a sudden world-wide interest in Nordic crime ction may also lead to an increased need for indirect translation, which, nally, will continue to be as in the past chiey a concern of (semi) peripheries. Boulogne studies the European discovery of the 19th century Russian novelists in general and Dostoevsky in particular, initiated in Germany, and generally perceived as an antidote against amoral French naturalism. Against E. Zohar's law, the French and German literary polysystems of the 1880s were neither young nor peripheral, but they were most denitely in crisis, so that the Russian author was used as a response to the literary crisis. Boulogne focuses on the German translation by W. Henckel and its literary context, as well as its most relevant reception in France, where, as a response to Zola's lack of enthusiasm for Dostoevsky, Vogue wrote his book about the Russian novel which was read all over Europe, becoming responsible for the European success of the Russian author. As far as the translations themselves were concerned, they were seriously abridged and suered scores of shifts, as not all the characteristics of the author's style and ideas were appreciated. The French ones followed the tradition of the belles indeles, but were read by such relevant personalities as Nietzsche. Another interesting nding is that also Western and Southern Slavs turned to the Russian novelists after France and Germany had discovered them. Their reception in other European countries via indirect translation is also briey described. www.lusosoa.net
Teresa Seruya, Hanna Pie ta
Finally, Skibi nska aims to show how the literary import of Polish literary prose in France between 1945 and 2009 was regulated by political and economic factors. Her corpus consists of nearly 400 titles from 80 publishing houses and by about 100 translators. The position of translation in the French literary eld is rstly reected upon, stressing its ambiguous relation to foreign literatures and translation. However, the number of French translations of Polish prose has been increasing, due, among others, to the fact that there were more and more originals that could be translated. Skibi nska proposes three periods for the French history of translation of Polish literature. In the rst years after World War II translation was mainly determined by the work's political usefulness and by new centers created by political exiles. On the Polish side writers were subject to state patronage on which the international exchange depended. In France, the increase in interest after 1975, according to the author, may be related to the appearance of `Samizdat circulation' in Poland after 1976, which liberated (partially) the writers from state censorship. 1989, as could be expected, is the year of the breakthrough. In addition to the new political situation, free trade and the freedom of travelling, as well as the development of communication technologies explain how the cultural exchange between the two countries became part of the global publishing movement.
References Branchadell, Albert, and Lovel Margaret West, eds. 2005. Less Translated Languages. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Casanova, Pascale. 2002. Consecration et accumulation de capital litteraire: La traduction comme echange inegal". Actes de la recherche en sciences sociales 144. 7-20. Casanova, Pascale. 2004. The World Republic of Letters. Translated by M. B. Debevoise. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Cronin, Michael. 1995. Altered States: Translation and Minority Languages. TTR 8 (1). 85-103. Cronin, Michael. 2009a. Minority. In Routledge Encyclopedia. Mona Baker and Gabriela Saldanha, eds. London / New York: Routledge Encyclopeadia of Translation Studies. 169-172. Cronin, Michael. 2009b. Editorial. MTM 1. 4-6. Gonzalo de Jesus, Patricia. 2007. The Translation of Czech and Slovak Literature in Spain". Beata Cieszy nska, ed. Iberian and Slavonic Cultures: Contact and Comparison, Lisbon: CompaRes. 185-204. Grin, Roger. 1991. The Nature of Fascism. London: Pinter. Heilbron, Johan. 1999. Toward a Sociology of Translation: Book Translations as a Cultural World-system. European Journal of Social Theory 2 (4). 429-444. Heilbron, Johan. 2010. Structure and Dynamics of the World-system of Translations. International Symposium Translation and Cultural Mediation, Paris, 22-23 February. Kittel, Harald and Armin Paul Frank, eds. 1991. Interculturality and the Historical Study of Literary Translations. Berlin: Erich Schmidt Verlag. Medvedec, Arijana. 2007. Croatia and Portugal: Meeting Points through Literary Translation. Beata Cieszy nska, ed. Iberian and Slavonic Cultures: Contact and Comparison. Lisbon: CompaRes. 149-172.
Teresa Seruya, Hanna Pie ta
Munday, Jeremy. 2010. Translation Studies. Yves Gambier and Luc van Doorslaer, eds. Handbook of Translation Studies. Amsterdam / Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Pie ta, Hanna. 2011. Estudos Ibero-Eslavos em Portugal: Uma disciplina in statu nascendi . Miguel Real and Beata Cieszy nska, eds. Letras Com Vida 3. 146-150. Ramet, Sabrina. 1998. Eastern Europe: Politics, Culture and Society since 1939. Bloomington: Indiana University Press. Ramsak, Branka. 2010. The Slovene Reception of Federico Garca Lorca's Poetry. Beata Cieszynska, ed. IberoSlavica 2. 47-57. Wolf, Michaela. 1995. Translation as a Process of Power: Aspects of Cultural Anthropology. Mary Snell-Hornby, Zuzana Jettmarova and Klaus Kaindl, eds. Translation as Intercultural Communication. Amsterdam / Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 24-133.
Submission or Resistance?: Translating in Soviet Russia
Don Quixote Brian James Baer
Kent State University firstname.lastname@example.org
Abstract This article provides an overview of the reception of Cervantes's novel Don Quixote in modern Russia, focusing on the ways in which the work was politicized, on the one hand, and russied, on the other. Close attention is paid to translations and adaptations of Don Quixote in the Soviet Union, where the text-oriented approach of scholars was often at odds with the ideological interpretation of the work by critics and political gures. A close reading of two dramatic adaptations of the novel one by the writer Mikhail Bulgakov in 1938 and the other by the playwright Evgenii Shvarts in 1957 illustrate how the regime used translation to humble original writers, with the unintended consequence of making translation into an important site of resistance. Keywords Mikhail Bulgakov, Cervantes, Don Quixote, Evgenii Shvarts, Soviet translators, Censorship.
Brian James Baer
1. Introduction As surprising as it may seem to us today, the question of power or more specically the question of the asymmetry of power relations in translation is a relatively recent one, rst raised approximately twenty years ago by translation scholars inuenced by postcolonial studies. (Traditional linguistic and even text-based models had for the most part ignored the question.) Scholars such as Tejaswini Niranjana (1992) and Eric Cheytz (1997) focused on the uses of translation as an important tool of colonial oppression. Future studies complicated these power dynamics by demonstrating how translation has also served, especially under conditions of repressive censorship, as a mode of resistance or opposition to the dominant power (Tymoczko and Gentzler (2002), Tymoczko (2010), and Asimakoulis and Rogers (2011)). The discussion of these issues has been extremely productive, leading to very interesting and relevant philosophical debates over the translator's agency and translation ethics. Soviet Russia is, for a number of reasons, an especially interesting place to examine the relationship of translation to issues of power and resistance to power. First, Russia's belated entry onto the European cultural scene made translation into a very visible, much-discussed, and, at various times in Russian history, a relatively well-subsidized practice. Most of Russia's greatest nineteenth and twentieth century writers engaged in translation in a serious and sustained manner, which added further prestige to translation. Second, at least since Peter I inaugurated his policies of forced westernization of the Russian elite, translation has occupied an ambivalent position vis-a-vis the state; while translation was considered absolutely essential for Russia's cultural and economic development, it was also seen as an avenue for the dissemination of potentially dangerous foreign ideas. In the Soviet era, translation played an important role in both domestic politics, i.e., the maintenance of the Soviet empire, and in foreign aairs, in promoting world communism and solidifying ties with countries within the Soviet bloc. At the same time the state was promoting translation as a social good and as a necessary tool in maintaining its role as the leader of world communism, however, it was also using transwww.clepul.eu
Submission or Resistance?: Translating Don Quixote in Soviet Russia
lation as a means to control, or humble its original writers. A number of writers Mikhail Kuzmin, Anna Akhmatova, Boris Pasternak, Marina Tsvetaeva, Nikolai Zabolotskii, to name but a few who were not allowed to publish their own writing were given translation work to do, a move which Daniele Monticelli refers to as de-authorization, describing it as a radical reconguration of the distribution of the sensible what is visible, what can be said and heard in the literary eld itself 1 . The unintended consequence of this, however, as I will show in my discussion of Soviet-era adaptations of Cervantes's Don Quixote, was to turn this act of submission into a site of resistance, leading banned writers to express their aesthetic, moral, even political concerns in their translations for a reading public that was particularly adept at reading between the lines. The fact that many of the Soviet Union's leading writers were forbidden to publish their own work but were allowed to work as translators made it inevitable, perhaps, that they would use translation to express their own stylistic and thematic concerns. Moreover, translation was less tightly controlled than original writing, and so, somewhat paradoxically, the Soviet Union's promotion of translated literature, as institutionalized in the World Literature Publishing House, founded by Maxim Gorky in 1918, established the conditions for public i.e., published acts of resistance in the form of translations. To illustrate the complex nature of translation as an act of both submission and resistance, I will examine the adaptations of Cervantes's Don Quixote by the Soviet writers Mikhail Bulgakov (1938) and Evgenii Shvarts (1942-44) and their relationship to these authors' original writing of the time including those works, like Bulgakov's Master and Margarita, that were done for the drawer, that is, with the realization they could never be published in the author's lifetime. What I hope will become evident in the course of this study is that translation was an extremely ambivalent site of artistic production in 1
This concept of de-authorization was presented by Monticelli in a paper given at the international conference Beyond Transction: Translators and (Their) Authors, held at the University of Tel Aviv, Israel, in May 7-8, 2013. The title of the Monticelli's talk was From Authorship to Anonymous Translation: Patterns of `De-authorization' in Postwar Soviet Estonia.
Brian James Baer
the Soviet period, implicated in both the de-authorization of writers as translators, and the re-authorization of translators as writers. In many ways, these translations by banned writers perform a uniquely Soviet form of subjectivity in which submission and resistance are inseparably linked, as they are in Cervantes's classic novel Don Quixote, which Cervantes claims in his preface to be a translation from the Arabic. Cervantes's hero, Don Quixote, in fact, played a central role in Russian discussions of the nature of power and resistance for almost two centuries.
2. Don Quixote
in Tsarist Russia
In his monumental cultural history of Russia, The Icon and the Axe, historian and Librarian of Congress James H. Billington notes a close and enduring connection between Russia and Spain, two countries situated at the extreme margins of Europe, each ruled by an improbable folklore of military heroism; each animated by strong traditions of veneration for local saints; each preserving down to modern times a rich musical tradition of primitive atonal folk lament; each destined to be a breeding ground for revolutionary anarchism and the site of a civil war with profound international implications in the twentieth century. (Billington 1970: 70)
This mutual anity was reected in an abiding interest among Russian cultural gures in the art and literature of Spain. Modern Russians, Billington argues, felt a certain fascination with Spanish passion and spontaneity as a spiritual alternative to the dehumanized formality of Western Europe. They idealized the picaresque roguery of Lazarillo de Tormes, and the implausible gallantry of Don Quixote, in the book Dostoevsky considered `the last and greatest word of human thought.' (. . . ) Even Turgenev, the most classical of the great Russian novelists, preferred Calder on's dramas to those of Shakespeare. (Billington 1970: 71)
Submission or Resistance?: Translating Don Quixote in Soviet Russia
Spanish literature, especially the works of Miguel de Cervantes, became an object of adaptation and translation for Russians beginning in the mid-eighteenth century, following Peter the Great's policies of forced westernization. The rst translation of a work by Cervantes was the incomplete 1769 translation of Don Quixote from a French translation, believed to have been done by Nikolai Osipov (Turkevich 1967: 216). Osipov published a more complete abridged edition in 1791, which was republished in 1812. Between 1804 and 1806, Russia's greatest poettranslator Vasilii Zhukovskii published his translation of Don Quixote, again from the French translation of Florian, in six volumes. Volume one contained a translation of Florian's introduction to the French edition, as well as two articles by Florian on the life and work of Cervantes. This edition was republished in 1815. Retranslations of Don Quixote continued to appear throughout the nineteenth century: a translation from the French by C. de Chaplet (1831); an incomplete translation from the original Spanish by K. Massal'skii (1838; second edition in 1848); a translation from the Spanish by V. Karelin (1866; republished in 1873, 1881, 1892, 1901, and 1910); a two-volume edition of new, complete translations of Don Quixote by S. M. and Louis Viardot (1895; second edition in 1910); and new translations from the Spanish by N. M. Timofeev (1895), L. A. Murakhina (1899), M. Basanin (L. A. Lasheeva) (1899); N. V. Tupelev (1904) and M. V. Vatson (1907; republished in 1917 as a supplement to the journal Niva ). This list does not include the many abridged editions for children. The degree to which Russian writers identied with Cervantes is evident in Nikolai Gogol's adaptation of Cervantes's Dialogue of the Dogs in his Diary of a Madman; in the critic Vissarion Belinkskii's description of Chatskii, the hero of Aleksandr Griboedov's drama Woe from Wit, as a Don Quixote; in the dramatist Aleksandr Ostrovskii's translations of Cervantes's eight short dramas, Interludes ; and in references to Don Quixote in Fedor Dostoevskii's novel The Idiot and in the novelist Ivan Turgenev's famous essay Hamlet and Don Quixote (1869), not to mention the ballet Don Quixote choreographed by Marius Petipa to the music of Ludwig Minkus, which premiered in St. Petersburg in 1871. Russian opinion on Cervantes's work, however, was not uniformly positive, and tended to diverge along political lines. Political liberals, www.lusosoa.net
Brian James Baer
such as Alexander Herzen, Dmitrii Pisarev, and Nikolai Dobroliubov, tended to critique Don Quixote as passive, unable to act eectively in the world. Herzen refered to the failed revolutionaries of 1848 as Don Quixotes of the Revolution (Turkevich 1950: 77). More conservative writers and critics saw Cervantes's hero as a spiritual idealist who stood against the forces of modernity. But what is perhaps most important here is that both liberals and conservatives politicized Don Quixote, and both sides saw him, for better or worse, as a Russian type. Pisarev's article A Russian Don Quixote, for example, was a critique of a prominent Russian Slavophile. Dobroliubov, too, spoke of Russian Don Quixotes (Turkevich 1950: 78-79). While both sides interpreted Don Quixote within the context of contemporary debates over the possibility of political action in an autocratic state, often opposing him to Shakespeare's Hamlet a natural comparison given that Shakespeare's play and Cervantes's novel were published in the same year Dostoevskii's and Turgenev's interpretations reect the Romantic re-reading of Don Quixote as an essentially profound, poetic, and philosophical work, whose comedy lies only on the surface. (. . . ) Don Quixote is a tragic gure whose noble idealism and creative imagination are frustrated by an uncomprehending society, and his death is the last sad act of his tragedy (Doyle 1983: 870). Turgenev was in fact the rst Russian to juxtapose the two literary heroes in his essay Hamlet and Don Quixote, delivered as a speech on January 10, 1860, at a public reading to benet the Society for the Aid of Needy Writers and Scholars. In that speech, Turgenev contrasts Don Quixote's faith and self-denial to Hamlet's pride and egotism. As Joseph Frank puts it, Turgenev's famous pages proved to be a panegyric of the man of faith, Don Quixote, who is held up for admiration in preference to the worldly, skeptical, disillusioned Hamlet (Frank 2010: 281). For Turgenev, this vision of Don Quixote was meant to describe members of the younger generation in Russia ready once again to sacrice themselves for the cause of the people (Frank 2010: 281-2). In making Hamlet a representative of the cold, rationalist culture of Northern countries and Don Quixote, of the more emotional, spiritual cultures of the South, Turgenev clearly aligns Russia with Don Quixote's south. In doing so, Turgenev invokes the already established opposition of a spiritual Russia to a rationalist West. He www.clepul.eu
Submission or Resistance?: Translating Don Quixote in Soviet Russia
made a similar point in his review of Mikhail Vrochenko's translation of Goethe's Faust, in which he critiques the character for being an egotist. The poet and scholar Viacheslav Ivanov wrote an essay on Don Quixote to mark the 300th anniversary of the novel in 1866. While in the essay, entitled The Crisis of Individualism, Ivanov describes both Hamlet and Don Quixote as representatives of a new individualism that would culminate in the writings of Nietzsche, he nonetheless contrasts Hamlet to Don Quixote: In contrast to Hamlet, Don Quixote seems to incarnate the active pathos of the collective (Turkevich 1950: 158). Dostoevskii was deeply inuenced by Turgenev's essay and incorporated many aspects of Turgenev's positive representation of Don Quixote into the character of Prince Myshkin, the hero of his novel The Idiot. In a letter to his friend Valerian Maikov, Dostoevskii writes of Don Quixote as a kind of holy fool: I will mention only that, of the beautiful gures in Christian literature, the most complete is that of Don Quixote. But he is only good because at the same time he is ridiculous. (. . . ) Compassion for a beautiful man who is rediculed and who is unaware of his own worth generates sympathy in the reader (Frank 2010: 562-3). These Russian interpretations of Don Quixote and the politicization of the novel's hero would live on into the Soviet and post-Soviet eras.
3. Don Quixote in Soviet Russia The popularity of Don Quixote did not wane in Soviet Russia, as evidenced by new translations, new critical literature, and various interlingual and intersemiotic adaptations of the novel. The rst Soviet translation of Don Quixote, under the editorship of B. M. Krzhevskii and A. A. Smirnov, came out as a two-volume edition published by Academia Publishing in 1929-1932. A second edition of volume one appeared in 1932 and of volume two in 1935. A new edition of this translation was published by Molodaia Gvardiia in 1935-1937. A new translation by N. Liubimov, with the poems translated by Mikhail Lozinskii, was published in 1951 by Goslitizdat. It was reissued in 1959 in a print run of 225,000. A deluxe edition of Don Quixote in Liubimov and Lozinskii's translation appeared in 1953-54. Another new edition was issued by www.lusosoa.net
Brian James Baer
Goslitizdat in 1955 with a new introduction by Ilya Ehrenberg. Edited and abridged editions appeared in 1924, 1925, 1926, 1927, 1928, 1929, 1930, 1933, 1934, 1940, and 1952. The prominent writer and political gure Anatolii Lunacharskii produced a loose dramatic adaptation of Don Quixote under the title Osvobozhdennyi Don Kikhot [The Liberated Don Quixote] in 1922. The novelist and playwright Mikhail Bulgakov completed an adaptation of Don Quixote for the stage in 1938, but it was not performed during the author's lifetime. The playwright Evgenii Shvarts completed his own adaptation of Don Quixote for lm in 1957. This version would serve as the screenplay for the lm Don Quixote by director Grigorii Koznitsev. Ocial support for the publication of Cervantes's work can be explained, at least in part, by the fact that Marx liked Cervantes and had written favorably about the author. Not surprisingly, early Soviet Marxist criticism on Cervantes, by Vladimir Friche, Anatolii Lunacharskii, Vasilii Novitskii, Aleksandr Beletskii, and F. V. Kelyin, analyzed his works within the socio-economic context of sixteenth-century Spain. The fact that the character of Don Quixote was a hidalgo, that is, a representative of the lower nobility in Spain, which was becoming increasingly impoverished and politically disempowered as it was being displaced by an emerging bourgeoisie, made the work especially attractive to Marxist critics. As evidence of Don Quixote 's relevance for the new regime, Lunacharskii, a leading Bolshevik and the First People's Commissar of the Enlightenment, wrote a play based on Cervantes's unlikely hero, The Liberated Don Quixote (1922)2 . The play is a veiled commentary on recent Soviet history, with Don Quixote representing Maksim Gorkii, Don Balthazar representing Lunacharskii, and Don Rodrigo representing Lenin (Fitzpatrick 2002: 131). By placing Gorkii, who emigrated from Russia in 1921, in the role of Don Quixote, Lunacharskii was branding him as an impractical idealist. (Lunacharskii's appointment as the So2
The title has at least two possible referents. Lunacharskii was a member of the Marxist economist Georgii Plekhanov's pre-revolutionary circle The Liberation of Labor [Osvobozhdenie truda]; the title also evokes Torquato Tasso's epic poem Jerusalem Delivered (1581), another important work of the Western Renaissance, translated into Russian as Osvobozhdennyi Ierusalim [Liberated Jerusalem].
Submission or Resistance?: Translating Don Quixote in Soviet Russia
viet ambassador to Spain in 1933 may have been a reward for his interest in Spanish literature. He died en route.) The politicization of Cervantes's works only intensied during the Spanish Civil War (1936-39). As Katerina Clark notes, [i]n representations of the war in Spain made by antifascists, the point is almost invariably emphasized that the Republicans are ghting to preserve Spanish, and by extension European, culture. This culture is standardly represented in terms of El Greco, Goya, and especially Cervantes, some mention of whom was virtually de rigueur. (Clark 2011: 264)
The rst Soviet retranslation of Don Quixote was sponsored by the state-run publishing house Academia, which was founded on April 14, 1923. Academia had two basic goals: to bring out high quality, scholarly translations or re-translations of the great works of world literature and to oer politically correct interpretations of those works. These two goals, it turned out, were somewhat at odds, and the Academia edition of Cervantes's Don Quixote, which was published in individual volumes from 1929 to 1932, embodied some of those contradictions. The combination of a scholarly approach on the part of the translators, which encouraged a high degree of delity to the linguistic features of the source text, with an ideological approach on the part of critics and commentators, which stressed delity to the ideological meaning of the work, often resulted in the production of translated texts that did not align with the ocial ideological readings of the work. As Ludmila Turkevich explains, In dealing with immortal works, particularly in making new editions of them, the Marxists enlisted the aid of scholars in the eld, and their contributions reveal a greater interest in the works themselves than in the fashional critical approach (Turkevich 1950: 199). Moreover, the respected Russian hispanists Boris Krzhevskii and Aleksandr Smirnov who edited the translation, which was produced by various translators, had been trained in the pre-revolutionary university system, as were most of the translators who worked on the project3 . Among the translators of the novel's poetry was Mikhail Kuzmin, an openly gay writer, 3
In fact, both Krzhevskii and Smirnov had rather dubious pasts from a strict communist point of view, having studied at St. Petersburg University before the
Brian James Baer
known in pre-revolutionary circles as the Russian Wilde. To the extent that these two approaches were separated the linguistics-oriented approach reected in the translation proper and the ideology-oriented approach reected in the paratextual literature it was relatively easy for Soviet readers simply to ignore the ideological interpretations. Sponsored by the Soviet government as proof of its bone des as the cosmopolitan leader of world communism, translations of the canonical works of world literature were widely available to Soviet readers and were routinely subjected to alternative, resistant interpretations by an increasingly oppositional intelligentsia. Katerina Clark in Moscow: The Fourth Rome. Stalinism, Cosmopolitanism, and the Evolution of Soviet Culture, 1931-1941 (2011) documents the broad-based interest in the Western Renaissance within Soviet cultural and political circles of the 1930s as a model for a cosmopolitan Soviet society. At the prestigious Moscow Institute for Philosophy, Literature and History, the lecturers particularly advanced the Renaissance as a historical precedent for the new age, picturing it as a time of `beauty' and `humanism,' values for which they could nd ample endorsement in the early Marx. Their students were responsive; the lectures there on the Renaissance were always packed (Clark 2011: 132). This, in turn, led to high-prole retranslations of the great literary works of the Renaissance, such as Dante's Divine Comedy and Cervantes's Don Quixote, which provided the Soviet intelligentsia with the terms it would use to discuss their increasingly problematic place within Soviet society. While the ocial promotion of the Renaissance made re-translations of classic works available to a broad reading public, the regime proved ultimately powerless to control the interpretations Soviet readers would give to these complex cultural works. In other words, while the regime promoted the Renaissance as a metaphor for the new Soviet society, the meaning of the Renaissance and of Renaissance texts was a matter of debate. Katerina Clark, for example, describes the very heated deRevolution. Krzhevskii completed his degree in Spain, where he studied from 1914-16, while Smirnov had close ties with the Symbolist poets Zinaida Gippius and Aleksandr Blok; he was a designated opponent at Mikhail Bakhtin's dissertation defense in 1940, and recommended that Bakhtin be awarded the doctoral degree against the objection of other members of the panel.
Submission or Resistance?: Translating Don Quixote in Soviet Russia
bates over the meaning of Shakespeare and his plays against the backdrop of ocial Shakespearization : The slogan `Shakespearization' was a call to produce a world-historical literature, raising it to the heights of `world literature', but what that meant was hotly contested (Clark 2011: 184). Indeed, this interest in the Western Renaissance led to three major translations of Shakespeare's Hamlet in the 1930s by Mikhail Lozinskii, Anna Radlova, and Boris Pasternak which became a vehicle for a public discussion of the intelligentsia's relationship to state power. Or consider Dante, another Renaissance gure who, like Cervantes, was revered in Soviet Russia in both ocial and oppositional circles. While for the regime Dante was a critic of bourgeois Florence, members of the increasingly oppositional intelligentsia saw him as a political exile who spoke truth to power. Anna Akhmatova, for example, references Dante in the nal lines of her 1924 poem Muza (The Muse) in which she establishes her connection with great poets, symbolized by Dante, who suer both in their personal lives and in their relationship with the state (Reeder 1994: 238). She returned to the theme in 1936 when she devoted an entire poem to Dante, emphasizing his role as the archetypal poet in exile, playing the same role as Ovid did in Pushkin's work (Reeder 1994: 238). As Akhmatova's English-language biographer Roberta Reeder points out, the poem may also be an indirect allusion to Mandelstam, another poet in exile (Reeder 1994: 238), who was also a great lover of Dante, as evident in his 1933 essay Conversation about Dante. Increasingly harassed by the regime, Mandelstam bought a paperback edition of the Divine Comedy to take with him in the event he was arrested, which happened in 1936. The associative link between Dante's Inferno and Stalinist reality was, of course, more directly drawn by Solzhenitsyn in The First Circle, his novel of life in the Gulag. There was nothing obscure or recherche about these intertextual references. Dante's work had become acutely relevant among the intelligentsia in the 1930s, during an especially brutal period of political repression, when one of the Soviet Union's most revered translators Mikhail Lozinskii was commissioned to retranslate Dante's Divine Comedy. Lozinskii was a great friend of Akhmatova and other Russian literati of her generation and so while Lozinskii was translating the Divine Comwww.lusosoa.net
Brian James Baer
edy, Dante's work became a regular topic of conversation among the intelligentsia, dening, one might say, the terms of their resistance. Like Shakespeare's Hamlet and Dante's Inferno, Cervantes's Don Quixote was a work of the Western Renaissance that, although promoted by the regime, would come to frame for an increasingly oppositional intelligentsia the terms of the debate over their submission or resistance to state power.
3.1. Bulgakov's Don Quixote (1937) Mikhail Bulgakov (1891-1940) was a playwright and prose writer. His most famous plays are The Fatal Eggs (1924) and Heart of a Dog (1925), which many read as satires of the new Soviet society. Although his novel White Guard presented a sympathetic portrait of anti-communist Whites, the dramatic version, The Days of the Tiurbins (1926), was purportedly a favorite of Stalin. Nevertheless, by the early thirties Bulgakov was largely unable to publish or to stage his original works. Bulgakov wrote his greatest literary work, the novel Master and Margarita, during the worst years of Stalinist oppression. It would not be published in Russia until 1973. While Bulgakov was writing his masterpiece, he was commissioned by the Vaghtangov Theater in Moscow to produce a free dramatization of Cervantes's novel Don Quixote. Bulgakov took the commission very seriously, learning Spanish so as to study Cervantes's work in the original. Don Quixote became a symbol for Bulgakov of a literary tradition that was being increasingly marginalized in ocial Soviet culture. As Peter Doyle points out, Don Quixote is one of the three great works of literature explicitly referred to in Master and Margarita, when Korov'yev, outside Griboyedov House, the headquarters of the Soviet Writers Organization, is ironically thrilled to think that at this very moment there is maturing in this house the future author of a Don Quixote or a Faust or, who knows, a Dead Souls . (Doyle 1983: 246)
W. J. Leatherbarrow suggests that this aside is in fact an important metaliterary commentary, aligning Bulgakov's work with great works www.clepul.eu
Submission or Resistance?: Translating Don Quixote in Soviet Russia
of world literature that combined elements of comedy and tragedy, of high and low, with an admixture of the supernatural (Leatherbarrow 1975:30), while blurring distinctions between good and evil, fantasy and reality (Doyle 1983: 246). Bulgakov completed the work in 1938, but the political climate was such that it was not produced or published in his lifetime. The play was eventually produced in 1940, a year after Bulgakov's death, and was well received. In Bulgakov's dramatization of Don Quixote one sees reected the issues that were of most concern to the author in the late 1930s, during the height of Stalin's terror. As Peter Doyle points out, His dramatization is certainly far more than simply illustrations of selected incidents from Don Quixote much of Bulgakov's play is not taken from Cervantes at all (Doyle 1983: 871), suggesting that Bulgakov was interested not in faithfully rendering the classic work but in adapting it to his particular time and place. By the end of the 1930s, Bulgakov was identifying with the Romantic image of Don Quixote, and in 1937 described his playwriting attempts as pure Quixotism (Doyle 1983: 871). Nevertheless, his dramatization of Don Quixote was produced in 1940, while his original work Master and Margarita was published in Russian only in 1973, suggesting that translation was in fact an eective strategy for authors to publish writing that, if not original in the strict sense of the term, nonetheless allowed them to express their own aesthetic, thematic and moral concerns. And so, what the regime intended as a punishment, a humbling of the author, became an important site of resistance, where censored authors could continue to address the themes that were important and relevant to them for a readership that had long been trained to read between the lines. As Doyle points out, while many of the changes Bulgakov makes are necessary to condense the voluminous novel into a play format, there are several scenes that clearly serve to heighten Don Quixote's nobility and sense of vocation, to emphasize the evil in the world about him, and to increase the tragedy of his downfall (Doyle 1983:871). Indeed, some of the best known passages of the play had particular resonance in Stalinist Russia against the backdrop of the Great Purge of 1936-1938. For example, in Act III, Bulgakov's Don Quixote makes an impassioned plea for greater tolerance: www.lusosoa.net
Brian James Baer Don Quixote: (To the herzog's confessor.) Do you believe that a man who travels the world not in search of pleasure but in search of thorns is a madman who spends his time in vain? People choose dierent paths. One man stumbles, clambering along the path of vanity, another crawls along the path of humiliating attery, while others follow the path of hypocrisy and deceit. Do I follow any of these paths? No! I follow the steep path of chivalry and look with suspicion upon worldly goods. Whom did I avenge when I entered into battle with the giants that were bothering you? I entered into battle for the weak, for those humiliated by the strong! If I should see evil anywhere, I would enter a deadly squirmish in order to smash monstrous evil deeds and crimes. Don't you see them? Then you have bad eyesight, holy Father! [Don Kikhot: (Dukhovniku gertsoga.) Vy schitaete, chto chelovek, stranstvuiushchii po svetu ne v poiskakh naslazhdenii, a v poiskakh ternii, bezumen i prazdno tratit vremia? Liudi vybiraiut raznye puti. Odin, spotykaias', karabkaetsia po doroge tshcheslaviia, drugoi polzet po trope unizitel'noi lesti, inye probiraiutsia po doroge litsemeriia i obmana. Idu li ia po odnoi iz etikh dorog? Net! Ia idu po krutoi doroge rytsarstva i preziraiu zemnye blaga, no ne chest' ! Za kogo ia mstil, vstupaia v boi s gigantami, kotorye vas tak razdrazhali? Ia zastupalsia za slabykh, obizhennykh sil'nymi! Esli ia videl gde-nibud' zlo, ia shel na smertel'nuiu skhvatku, chtoby pobit' chudovishch zloby i prestuplenii! Vy ikh ne vidite nigde? U vas plokhoe zrenie, sviatoi otets!]
The reference to thorns serves to associate Bulgakov's Don Quixote with Christ, and the trope of sight you have bad eyesight invokes the Russian tradition of the holy fool who sees what wise men cannot. Later, in Act IV, Don Quixote speaks of his love of freedom: I am afraid, has he cured my soul, or has he removed it without replacing it with another. . . He's deprived me of the most precious gift that can be given a man he's deprived me of my freedom! There is much evil in the world, Sancho, but there is no evil worse than captivity! [Ia boius', ne vylechil li on moiu dushu, vylechiv, vynul ee, no drugoi ne vlozhil. . . On lishil menia samogo dragotsennogo dara,
Submission or Resistance?: Translating Don Quixote in Soviet Russia
kotorym nagrazhden chelovek,on lishil menia svobody! Na svete mnogo zla, Sancho, no khuzhe netu zla!]
But Bulgakov ties the themes of Cervantes's novel most directly to the realities of Stalinist Russia of the 1930s in Act I, Scene I, in a lengthy monologue, where he states that he was born to turn our wretched iron age into a golden age. . . Let us go around the world in order to avenge the insults bestowed by the erce and powerful on the helpless and weak, in order to ght for discredited honor, in order to give the world back that which it has irrevocably lost justice. Although the idea of avenging the helpless and weak ts well within communist rhetoric concerning the liberation of the oppressed proletariat, the reference to our wretched iron age might serve as an allusion to Stalinist Russia, with its focus on industrialization and heavy industry, or even to Stalin himself, whose revolutionary surname was formed from the Russian word stal ', or `steel.' Moreover, Bulgakov suggests that Don Quixote is not insane but rather chooses to believe what he does, making him, as Doyle points out, into an idealist rather than a lunatic (Doyle 1983: 872). As both Smirnova and Doyle contend, Bulgakov's adaptation of Don Quixote also suggests links between the ctional hero and Bulgakov himself who was then engaged in the quixotic task of writing for the drawer. The common themes explored by Bulgakov in this translation/adaptation of Don Quixote and in his original writing of the time blur the boundary between translation and authorship. However, the themes and concerns that Bulgakov was expressing in his original writing specically, in the novel Master and Margarita could only be published in a translation, illustrating how under conditions of censorship translation becomes a privileged site of resistance.
3.2. Shvarts's Don Quixote (1957) Evgenii L'vovich Shvarts (1896-1958) was a popular Soviet-era writer who wrote twenty plays, 11 lm scripts, and one script for an animated lm. He is perhaps best known for his play Drakon [The Dragon] (1944), www.lusosoa.net
Brian James Baer
which he classied as a skazka, or `fairy tale'. The skazka was Shvarts's preferred genre he wrote nine in all perhaps because it, like translation, provided some cover for the writer, allowing him to explore themes that might have been impossible in more realistic genres. As he put it in one of his most popular fairytales, Obyknovennoe Chudo [An Ordinary Miracle] (1956): You tell a fairy tale not to hide something, but to expose something, to say with all your might and at the top of your lungs everything you're thinking [Skazka rasskazyvaetsia ne dlia togo, chtoby skryt', a dlia togo, chtoby otkryt', skazat' vo vsiu silu, vo ves' golos to, cho dumaesh']. The Dragon, which Shvarts wrote during his evacuation from Leningrad to Dushanbe (known then as Stalinabad), was a courageous depiction of tyranny, as symbolized by the dragon of the title, who exercises his tyranny not so much in physical ways but by crushing the residents' souls (vyvikhnut' liudskie dushi). While the hero succeeds in slaying the dragon, Shvarts gives a darkly ironic twist to the heroic tale. The liberated residents miss the dragon, whose presence excused their inaction, their unquestioning obedience (poslushnost'), and the dragon is soon replaced by the no less tyrannical burgermeister. Lancelot then understands that to free people, it is not enough to slay the dragon of tyranny: Inside each of them a dragon must be killed 4 . As Mark Lipovetsky notes, Shvarts's fairytale blurs the borderline not only between the father gure and the monster, but also between a tyrant and his victims. It destroys the fairy-tale conviction of easily achieved happiness and redenes personal maturation as the necessity of jettisoning the collective shadow (Lipovetsky 2005: 240). The play had only one performance in Moscow before it was banned. His 1940 play Ten' [Shadow] had experienced a similar fate. The plays were thought to be too close to political satire, but Shvarts was never prosecuted or harassed by the regime perhaps because, as Lipovetsky suggests, the regime could not acknowledge the applicability of the play's themes to Soviet reality: The Soviet regime pretended not to recognize itself in Shvarts's parable, and German Nazism played the role of the other in the mechanism of shadow projection (2005: 240-1). Drakon 4 That Shvarts conceived Lancelot as a symbol of the writer in times of oppression is suggested by the fact that the residents of the city hand him a sheet of paper instead of a lance; the paper certies that the lance is in the shop being repaired.
Submission or Resistance?: Translating Don Quixote in Soviet Russia
was not performed again on stage until after the author's death in 1962, during the cultural thaw under Krushchev. It was staged again in 1979, and then regularly when censorship restrictions were loosened in the 1980s, during perestroika, and after the fall of the Soviet Union. The rst lm adaptation of the play, Ubit' Drakona [Kill the Dragon], appeared in 1988 under the direction of Mark Zakharov and was muchdiscussed during the lively perestroika-era re-assessment of the Soviet past. The 1979 edition of the Great Soviet Encyclopedia described the play as one of the most profound and original works of Soviet satirical drama. While Shvarts presented the play as a critique of Hitler's Germany through the use of German names and a reference to the Dragon's hatred of gypsies it was easy to see it as no less a critique of Stalin's Russia. As Shvarts later wrote to his daughter: I was writing about Hitler, but it turned out I was writing about us (Encyclopedia Britannica. Online). Although the play was banned during Shvarts's lifetime, he never appealed to the authorities. As the critic Mariia Khor'kova suggests, Shvarts wrote his fairytales for the future (2007: online). In any case, the playwright would have another, more successful, opportunity to express similar themes in his screenplay of Cervantes's Don Quixote, which appeared to great critical and popular acclaim as a lm under the direction of Grigory Kozintsev in 1957. It was shown at the Cannes Film Festival in 1957 but was not released in the U.S. until 1962 due to Cold War tensions. Shvarts's lm adaptation of Don Quixote shares many of the features of Bulgakov's adaptation for the stage. Both authors tend to tone down the comic and lunatic aspects of Don Quixote's behavior, lending their works a seriousness that bets their age. Thanks to the successful lm adaptation of Shvarts's screenplay by director Kuznetstov, Shvarts's version of Don Quixote is undoubtedly the most popular one in post-War Russia. Released in 1957, the lm was a reection of the cultural and political thaw of the post-Stalinist era under Nikita Khushchev. That Shvarts used the translation of Don Quixote to develop themes from his earlier works, in particular, The Dragon, is obvious. The translator Daniel Gerould suggests this when he describes Shvarts's Lancelot from The Dragon as a Don Quixote ghting a many-headed monster www.lusosoa.net
Brian James Baer
(Gerould 2000: vxiii). Shvarts himself makes a fairly obvious reference to his banned play in the following exchange between Don Quixote and Sancho: Don Quixote: There are dishonorable men who maintain that people live in poverty because of their own ignorance and evil deeds and that there are no evil sorcerers or dragons on earth. Sancho: What liars! Don Quixote: But I believe that dragons, evil sorcerers, unheard of villains and brigands are responsible for our sorrows and troubles, and that they can be immediately spotted and punished. [Don-Kishot]. Est' takie nechestivtsy, chto utverzhdaiut, budto bedstvuiut liudi po sobstvennomu nerazumiiu i zlobe, a nikakikh zlykh volshebnikov i drakonov i net na svete. Sancho: A, vruny kakie! Don-Kikhot: A ia veriu, cho vinovaty v nashikh gorestiakh i bedakh drakony, zlye volshebniki, neslykhannye zlodei i bezzakonniki, kotorykh srazu mozhno obnaruzhit' i nakazat'.]
Here, in Quixote's dream world, as in the world of fairy tales, the hero undertakes to slay a dragon, a symbol of violence and injustice, which in both works is described as a podvig, or `heroic feat.' Like the Dragon's city, Quixote's world is presented as an isolated world where the abnormal is normal (Lipovetsky 2005: 238). And in both works, Shvarts inverts the dominant hierarchies, as in the following passage: Don Quixote: O poverty, poverty! Why do you always follow the noble people while the base ones are spared. The eternally impoverished hidalgos slather paint on their shoes. And their stomachs are always empty while their hearts are full of sadness. [Don-Kikhot. O bednost', bednost' ! Pochemu ty vechno presleduesh' liugei blagorodnykh, a podlykhshchadish'. Vechno bednye idal'go podmazyvaiut kraskoi bashmaki. I vechno u nikh v zhivote pusto, a na serdtse grustno.]
This inversion of high and low is underscored in the passage above by Shvats's use of blagorodnye, or `noble,' to describe the poor, while the exalted are described as podlye, or `base.' Moreover, the prex pod carries the meaning of under, as in podpol'e, or `underground,' suggesting a high/low axis that Quixote's Christian virtue turns on its head. www.clepul.eu
Submission or Resistance?: Translating Don Quixote in Soviet Russia
The character of Don Quixote continues to be relevant in contemporary Russia. Shvarts's Don Quixote has been staged several times in recent years: once in 2006 by director B. Mirozvev, once in 2008 by A. Gorshkov, and twice in 2010, with one production being directed by Andrei Korionov and the other by Sergei Artsibashev. The popular television serial of Dostoevsky's novel The Idiot has also put Don Quixote in the news, so to speak, and it is unlikely that this interest will ever die out given that Don Quixote has long ago become an honorary Russian, the representative of a set of values that distinguish Russia from the West. To the extent that censorship encouraged writer-translators to express themselves through foreign works, to meld their aesthetic genius with that of foreign authors, translations in Russia like those of Don Quixote by Bulgakov and Shvarts became an integral part of the creative oeuvre of these writers. In studying the interplay between imitation and creation, these works challenge the nationalist chauvinism of literary studies that continue to focus exclusively on original works5 . The Russian writer, translator, and political activist Nikolai Chernyshevskii implored literary scholars to recognize the centrality of translated literature in the development of a nation's culture in an 1853 review of new Russian translations of Schiller: Currently, [literary history] deals with original works only, hardly paying any attention to translated literature. This would have been a reasonable approach had we expected from literary history simply a list of names which gained popularity in a single national literature rather than a description of the development of the literary ideas of a nation. (Chernyshevskii 1947-53: 502)
Don Quixote, clearly, was not simply a name in the history of modern Russian literature, but rather designated a discursive site at which for 5
Consider this comment by the Slavist Irina H. Corten: The general qualities frequently associated with Shvarts as a writer are imaginativeness and originality. Such evaluations are specially noteworthy because at least half of Shvarts' works are not his original `inventions' but adaptations of fairytales by other authors, particularly Hans Christian Anderson (1805-1875) and Charles Perrault (1628-1703) (Corten 1978: 51).
Brian James Baer
almost two centuries Russians contemplated the nature of resistance and submission, and the relationship between the two.
References Asimakoulis, Dmitrios and Margaret Rogers. 2011. Translation and Opposition (Translating Europe). Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Billington, James H. 1970. The Icon and the Axe. New York: Vintage Books. Chernyshevskii, Nikolai (1947-53). Shiller v perevode russkikh poetov [Schiller Translated by Russian Poets]. Sobranie Sochinenii v Piatnadtsati Tomakh [Collected Works in Fifteen Volumes]. Moscow: Goslitizdat, vol. IV. 502-505. Cheytz, Eric. 1997. Poetics of Imperialism. Translation and Colonization from The Tempest to Tarzan. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. Clark, Katerina. 2011. Moscow: The Fourth Rome. Stalinism, Cosmopolitanism and the Evolution of Soviet Culture, 1931-1941. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Corten, Irina H. 1978. Evgenii Shvarts as an Adapter of Hans Christian Anderson and Charles Perrault. Russian Review 37.1 (Jan). 51-67. Doyle, Peter. 1983. Bulgakov and Cervantes. MLR 78. 246-254. Fitzpatrick, Sheila. 2002. The Commissariat of the Englightenment. Soviet Organization of Education and the Arts under Lunacharsky, October 1917-1921. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Frank, Joseph. 2010. Dostoevsky: A Writer in His Time. Ed. Mary Petrusewicz. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Freidin, Grigory. 2001. Osip Mandelstam. Encyclopedia Britannica. Online. Gerould, Daniel. 2000. Introduction. Vasily Aksyonov. Your Murderer. Trans. Daniel Gerould. Amsterdam: Overseas Publishers Association. xi-xix. Leatherbarrow, W. J. 1975. The Devil and the Creative Visionary in Bulgakov's Master and Margarita. New Zealand Slavonic Journal 1. 29-45.
Brian James Baer
Lipovetsky, Mark. 2005. Introduction to Part III. Marina Balina, Helena Goscilo and Mark Lipovesky, eds. Politicizing Magic: An Anthology of Russian and Soviet Fairy Tails. Evanston: Northwestern UP. 105-122. Niranjana, Tejaswini. 1992. Siting Translation. History, Poststructuralism, and the Colonial Context. Berkeley: University of California Press. Reeder, Roberta. 1994. Anna Akhmatova: Poet and Prophet. New York: Picador. Turkevich, Ludmila. 1950. Cervantes in Russia. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Turkevich, Ludmila. 1967. Spanish Literature in Russia and in the Soviet Union, 1735-1965. Metuchen, N.J.: The Scarecrow Press. Tymoczko, Maria and Edwin Gentzler, eds. 2002. Translation and Power. Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press. Tymoczko, Maria, ed. 2010. Translation, Resistance, Activism. Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press.
The Steadfast Prince of Denmark Boris Pasternak's Last Translation Aleksei Semenenko Stockholm University email@example.com
Abstract The essay focuses on one of Boris Pasternak's lesser-known translations his rendition of Calder on de la Barca's The Steadfast Prince (El Prncipe Constante ) (1629), on which he was working during the last year of his life. The paper shows how in this translation Pasternak actualizes the motifs that are important for his poetics and his neo-Christian philosophy in general, and how Calderon's Catholic martyr acquires some of the Prince of Denmark's features. Keywords Boris Pasternak, Pedro Calder on de la Barca, Indirect translation, Poetics, Hamlet.
The Russian poet and writer Boris Pasternak (1890-1960) translated many Western classics into Russian, most notably Shakespeare and Goethe. In 1959 he did his last translation, Calderon de la Barca's drama The Steadfast Prince (El Prncipe Constante ) (1629), which appeared in print in 1961 after Pasternak's death. The context in which this translation was created requires special attention.
During his lifetime Pasternak had always been regarded as an ideologically suspicious author, and in 1958-1959 he experienced a new wave of attacks by the authorities provoked by the events surrounding the publication of Doctor Zhivago. As is well known, the novel was smuggled out of Russia in 1956 and printed abroad in 1957 in several languages. Furthermore, in October 1958 Pasternak was awarded the Nobel Prize in literature, which triggered a major press campaign against him. He was excluded from the Writers' Union, and the state publishing house Goslitizdat was forbidden to publish his translations, not to mention original works, which once again left him without the income to support himself and his family. This situation appeared to be even worse than in the 1930-1940s, when he was almost forced to turn to translations as the only means of making a living. Pasternak reected on this situation in the poem The Nobel Prize (1959) which brought even harsher consequences: he was taken to a personal meeting/interrogation with Chief Prosecutor Rudenko, who threatened to arrest him for treason and explicitly prohibited him from receiving foreign visitors at his dacha in Peredelkino. Not until the summer of 1959, through the translator Nikolai Liubimov, did Pasternak manage to obtain a side job, namely a contract for a new translation of Calderon's play. As his son Evgenii writes, Pasternak was at rst quite disappointed: Calderon seemed to be quite dull in comparison with Shakespeare. Nonetheless, in the process of translation Pasternak came to appreciate more and more the atmosphere of early Spanish Catholicism: I am insanely translating Calder on from morn till night, as I did Faust some time ago. I have lived a long life and have come to know so many diverse literatures of dierent epochs that it was a pleasure to encounter something absolutely unfamiliar, something unlike anything else. It is a very special world, highly elaborate, brilliant and profound. (E. Pasternak 1989: 654)
The comparison with Shakespeare is not accidental. During the 1930-1950s Boris Pasternak translated several sonnets and eight plays by Shakespeare, most famously Hamlet (rst edition published in 1940). Although some of these translations were undertaken partly for ecowww.clepul.eu
The Steadfast Prince of Denmark: Boris Pasternak's Last Translation
nomic reasons, Shakespeare and especially Hamlet strongly resonated with Pasternak's own oeuvre and his personal situation as a poet under the pressure of state control (more on this in Semenenko 2007: 96-98; Semenenko 2012). As I am going to show, Calderon's play was also seen through the prism of Hamlet, or rather through Pasternak's Hamletism, and it therefore underwent some subtle transformations in translation. Apart from the contextual connection to Shakespeare, Pasternak's translation of The Steadfast Prince poses a certain textological problem. Not being procient in Spanish, Pasternak used dierent intermediate translations; as he wrote on 14 October 1959 in a letter to Kurt Wolf, the publisher of Doctor Zhivago, I am diligently and in great haste translating Calderon, peeping into the Spanish original, [August] Schlegel's translation, and a French translation. Moreover, it is impossible to determine which French translation Pasternak might have used; the members of the Pasternak family could not recollect the exact name of the translator, and there are no known documents that would indicate it. This leaves us with two possible candidates from the nineteenth century: prose translations by Victor de la Beaumelle (1772-1831) from 1822 and by Jean Damas-Hinard (1805-1891) from 1841, both of which might be considered a plausible source for Pasternak. For our analysis of Pasternak's translation we are thus considering four texts: the Spanish original, Schlegel's translation, and two French translations1 . I will also occasionally refer to the other Russian translation of The Steadfast Prince from 1902 by the Russian symbolist poet Konstantin Bal'mont, which Pasternak might have known. We also have to keep in mind that the translator Nikolai Liubimov gave his comments to Pasternak after the draft had been nished. Such a rich lter between the source text and the nal product would predetermine a certain degree of indeterminacy of translation. However, apart from the cases discussed below, Pasternak's translation is surprisingly faithful to the original, and it might even seem that he translated directly from Spanish. As I intend to show, the most notable deviations from the source text are not of a linguistic character, nor 1 Hereafter, the examples from these translations are marked as Sch (according to Schlegel 1826), Ble (Beaumelle 1827), DH (Damas-Hinard 1843). All translations of Russian sources are mine, if not stated otherwise.
are they a result of the inuence of the intermediate translations. On the contrary and curiously enough, these irregularities resulted from the consistent but perhaps semi-conscious adaptation of Calder on's text to Pasternak's Hamletism and the transformation of a Portuguese prince into a Hamlet-like gure.
1. The play Calderon's play was written in 1628 and is based on a real event from the times of the Reconquista when Prince Fernando was captured as a result of the failed 1437 attempt of the Princes of Portugal Enrique and Fernando, sons of King Jo ao I and Queen Filipa of Lancaster, to conquer Tangier. Fernando died as a prisoner in 1441 and his remains were returned only during the reign of Alfonso V in 1471. The plot of the play vaguely follows the real event. It begins with the side story of the Moorish general Muley's love for Fenix, the Princess of Fez, who has been promised to Morocco's King Tarudant. Muley is taken prisoner by the Portuguese troops led by Enrique and Fernando, who have arrived on the northern coast of Africa. Feeling empathy for the Moor's problems, Fernando frees him, but shortly thereafter becomes a prisoner himself. In return for his life, the King of Fez demands the city of Ceuta, previously taken by the Portuguese, but Fernando refuses to give the city to the indels. Muley wants to repay his debt to Fernando by helping him escape, but Fernando refuses again. The King of Fez is enraged by Fernando's stubbornness and orders the prince to be treated as a common slave. Fernando accepts his fate with true Christian meekness and nally dies. His ghost appears before King Alfonso, who has previously disembarked in Africa, and urges him to recapture his remains. In the battle, Fenix is captured and exchanged for Fernando's body. The Portuguese return Fenix home but also demand that she marry Muley, who by that time is on the brink of despair. End of story. At rst glance it is hard to nd any connection with Hamlet in Calderon's play. The Steadfast Prince represents a dramatization of the martyrdom of Prince Fernando, and this hagiographic tone is prevalent www.clepul.eu
The Steadfast Prince of Denmark: Boris Pasternak's Last Translation
in the Spanish original. Fernando delivers many monologues some of which are quite lengthy of a moralistic and preceptive character: Fernando reminds his brother, who is worried by evil premonitions, of his rm belief in Providence ( Este no viene envuelto en miedos vanos, / a servirle venimos, no a ofenderle. / Cristianos sois; haced como cristianos.); to Muley, who tries to free him, he explains the priority of duty over feelings (Muley, amor y amistad / en grado inferior se ven / con la lealtad y el honor); he reminds the King of Fez of the divine nature of the ruler and of the rmness of his faith (No has de triunfar de la iglesia; / de m, si quisieres, triunfa); he preaches to other captives about submitting to fate and reads a sonnet to Fenix about the misery of man (En un da nacieron y expiraron; / que pasado los siglos, horas fueron). Fernando meekly accepts all the wrongs of fortune as the expression of God's will, at some point even comparing himself with the Biblical Job. As we see, Prince Fernando is very unlike the Prince of Denmark. However, there was one feature that was of great importance to Pasternak himself: the motif of self-sacrice, which united both princes and eventually led to an approximation of the two texts. Such an appropriation of a foreign text in a certain context is in fact a feature of Pasternak's poetics; it has been noted that he often exploits several invariant themes (Zholkovskii 2011) which may sometimes inuence other texts or translations as well. The motif of self-sacrice, which Pasternak emphasized both in Hamlet and Doctor Zhivago, is one of the most important ones and is closely associated with the motif of predestination and the shift of epochs in the context of the poet's historiosophy and neo-Christian philosophy (see Semenenko 2005). These motifs form a neo-mythological theme that can be described as a plot in which the messiah-like hero sacrices himself for the sake of an approaching epoch; his death makes it possible for the new age to come, and his sacrice turns out to be one of the mechanisms of history. These themes were actualized in Pasternak's interpretation of Hamlet the play and Hamlet the character, whom he unequivocally compares with Christ when he equates the to be soliloquy with the Gethsemane prayer (Pasternak 2003-5/V: 76). In contrast to the cliche of Hamlet as a will-less hero, Pasternak states that Hamlet is not a drama of charwww.lusosoa.net
acterlessness, but one of duty and self-sacrice (Pasternak 2003-5/V: 75). Apart from these two motifs, Pasternak also emphasizes the motif of judge of the time: It is far more important that the will of fate elects Hamlet to be the judge of his own time and the servant of a more distant one. Hamlet is a drama of exalted calling, imposed heroic task, entrusted destiny (Pasternak 2003-5/V. Transl. in Barnes 1998: 171). Obviously, as he translated Calderon, Pasternak perceived a certain similarity between these motifs in the two texts, and seen through the lens of the theme of self-sacrice, the Lusitanian prince acquired some features of the Prince of Denmark.
2. From general to personal The most notable deviation in the translation is the shift from general to personal. In the original, the main characters often express directly or, as it were, en passant didactic and moralizing statements in, for example, the monologues of Fernando or Muley that emphasize various Christian virtues. These statements are to various extents neutralized or toned down in the translation. For example, Fernando's phrase Morir como buenos / Con animos constantes is translated as Áåññòðàøíî / Ïîæåðòâîâàòü ñîáîþ â ðóêîïàøíîé. [Without fear / To sacrice ourselves in the ght], Sterben wie die Braven, / Als unerschrockne Geister (Sch); Mourir en gens de cœur avec une ame constante (Ble); mourir en hommes de cœur, avec constance (DH),
which shifts the accent and spotlights the motif of personal self-sacrice instead of rmness of spirit. In the very beginning of the play, Fernando twice warns against vain fears because he rmly believes in God's providence and therefore does not fear for his life, refusing to take the ominous signs seriously. Pasternak's translation of these lines does not mention vain fears, although they appear in all the intermediate translations. The rst instance is when the Portuguese troops disembark (Esos ag ueros viles, miedos vanos, / para los moros vienen, que los crean, / no para que los duden los cristianos), which is translated as www.clepul.eu
The Steadfast Prince of Denmark: Boris Pasternak's Last Translation
Àðàáàì ñòðàøíû ýòè ïðåäâåùàíüÿ. Áåäà ìèíóåò íàøè êîðàáëè. [The Arabs fear these premonitions. Calamity will pass our ships by]. Dergleichen schnode Zeichen u berlisten / Mit leerem Schreck die Mohren, die drauf bauen, / Nicht irre machen wollen sie die Christen (Sch); Ces vils augures, ces vaines terreurs ne peuvent menacer que les Mores qui les redoutent (Ble); Ces vils augures, ces vaines terreurs ne peuvent etre redoutables que pour les Mores qui y croient (DH).
The second is the episode of Fernando's capture. Fernando does not want vain fear to be communicated to the King: Dile al Rey. . . Mas no le digas nada, / si con grande silencio el miedo vano / estas lagrimas lleva al rey mi hermano. In the translation, the whole passage is rendered very freely, which totally changes the accent: Ìîë÷àíüå ýòî Åãî âåëè÷åñòâó âçàìåí ïðèâåòà. Ê ñëåçàì â ïðèäà÷ó Íå íàäî íè÷åãî. Ìîë÷ó è ïëà÷ó.
Instead of greetings, [bring] this silence to his majesty. Do not add anything to my tears. I am crying silently. mnmnjnnm
Note that if Schlegel duly includes vain fear in his translation, the French texts ignore it: Sag du dem K onig, aber nichts ihm sage: / In tiefem Schweigen bringt das bange W ahnen / Dem K onig, meinem Bruder, diese Thr anen (Sch); Tu diras au roi. . . Mais non. Ne lui dis rien. . . . . . Le silence sut. Adieu. . . . . . Porte ces larmes au roi mon frere (Ble); Vous direz au roi. . . Mais non, ne lui dites rien. . . Qu'il sache seulement mes regrets. (DH).
In the very beginning of the play Fernando ridicules the low spirits of his brother Enrique and the soldier Brito, a comic character in the www.lusosoa.net
play. Interestingly enough, this is a case where Schlegel's translation has directly inuenced Pasternak's text2 ; the dierence between the German translation and the original is apparent: Y que tu pena Sin raz on, sin arbitrio, y sin consuelo, tanto de ti te priva y te divierte! mnmnjnnm mnmnjnnm mnmnjnnm
DaĂ&#x; dein Bangen Auf keine Weise Trost weiĂ&#x; zu erwerben! Ihm grundlos, unwillk urlich nachzuhangen, Bist du dem eignen Mut ganz abgefallen.
Pasternak obviously renders the German version quite freely: Ă€ Ă§ĂĂ ĂĽĂ¸Ăź, Ă˘Ăť ĂĄĂĽĂ§ĂłĂŹĂźĂĽĂŹ ĂŽĂĄĂ ĂąĂľĂŽĂŚĂ¨. Ă?Ă°ĂĽĂ¤ĂˇĂłĂ˘ĂąĂ˛Ă˘Ă¨ĂżĂŹ Ă§ĂĂ ĂˇĂĽĂĂźĂĽ ĂŻĂ°Ă¨Ă¤Ă Ă˘Ă Ă˛Ăź, Ă‘ĂĽĂĄĂż ĂĄĂĽĂ§ ĂŽĂąĂĂŽĂ˘Ă ĂĂ¨Ăż Ă˛Ă°ĂĽĂ˘ĂŽĂŚĂ ! Ă„ĂłĂ¸ĂĽĂ˘ĂĂťĂľ ĂąĂ¨ĂŤ ĂĂ Ă˘ĂťĂ¤ĂłĂŹĂŞĂ¨ ĂĂĽ Ă˛Ă°Ă Ă˛Ăź
You know, you [and Brito] both are alike in your insanity. You take seriously your presentiments, Worrying without reason. Do not waste your spirit on such ctions
In another scene Fernando mentions several Christian virtues, such as prudence, courage, and fortitude (La prudencia, el valor, la bizarra). Prudence and courage are among the four cardinal virtues, but Pasternak notably adds hope, one of the three theological virtues, to this list: Ă?Ă Ă¤ĂĽĂŚĂ¤Ăł, Ă°Ă Ă§ĂłĂŹ, Ă˘ĂťĂ¤ĂĽĂ°ĂŚĂŞĂł, ĂŁĂĽĂ°ĂŽĂŠĂąĂ˛Ă˘ĂŽ. (Hope, reason, tenacity, heroism). Der Muth, die Weisheit, k uhnes Selbstvertrauen (Sch); ta valeur et ta prudence (Ble); ta prudence et ta valeur (DH).
Hope naturally emerges in this context because it is important for Pasternak's philosophy and the theme of self-sacrice in particular. In 2 On a side note, the English translation by MacCarthy (1933) also seems to follow Schelgel's version rather than the original.
The Steadfast Prince of Denmark: Boris Pasternak's Last Translation
the above-mentioned poem The Nobel Prize, which he created in the same year as his translation of Calderon's play, Pasternak repeats almost all the important motifs peculiar to his Hamletism, including his hope that a better future will come: Íî è òàê, ïî÷òè ó ãðîáà, Âåðþ ÿ, ïðèäåò ïîðà Ñèëó ïîäëîñòè è çëîáû Îäîëååò äóõ äîáðà. uuuuuuu uuuuuuu
Even almost on the edge of the grave, I believe that the time will come When the foul and malevolent powers Will be overcome by the spirit of good.
3. Personal tragedy The shift from general to personal also results in an emphasis on personal tragedy, which is in principle alien to Calderon's play. One of the remarkable manifestations of this is the prevalence of the word áåäà [calamity, misfortune] in the translation. In the original, Fernando repeats the word desdicha quite often, but it is always an external factor that tests Fernando's rm spirit; he accepts the ordeal with meekness and does not question his fate. In Russian, the closest equivalent of desdicha is the word íåñ÷àñòüå, whereas áåäà has broader connotations and can be used in a more general context. In the translation it becomes almost a leitmotif of the whole tragedy; it is repeated 37 times in many forms and sometimes appears in most unexpected places: Òî è áåäà (That's the trouble). = Fenix: Si yo supiera. Wenn ich w ußte / Selima, was mich betr ubt (Sch); si je savais ce qui m'aige (Ble & DH); ÿ òåðïëþ íóæäó è áåäû (I endure hardships). = Muley: nuevos triunfos te previene. Nach Triumphen f ur dich ringt (Sch); a faire triopher tes armes (Ble); ne cherche que le triomphe de vos armes (DH).
Aleksei Semenenko Ă ĂĽĂ¤Ă ĂŞĂ ĂŞĂ Ăż! [What a misfortune!] = Muley: Que es esto que estoy mirando?). Wobei bin ich zugegen? (Sch); Que vois-je? (Ble & DH). Ă ĂĽĂ¤Ă ! Ă„ĂŽĂąĂ Ă¤Ă ! [What a misfortune!] = Don Juan:. ÂĄGuerra, guerra! Waen! (Sch); Guerre! (Ble & DH). ĂŠĂ ĂŞ Ă°ĂťĂśĂ Ă°Ăź ĂŞĂ ĂŚĂ¤ĂťĂŠ, / Ă‚ Ă˛Ă ĂŞĂŽĂŠ ĂĄĂĽĂ¤ĂĽ Ăż ĂąĂŹĂĽĂ°Ă˛Ă¨ Ă˛ĂŽĂŤĂźĂŞĂŽ ĂŚĂ ĂŚĂ¤Ăł [As every knight [nobleman], / I aspire only to death in such calamity] = Fernando: Un caballero soy; saber no esperes / m as de m: dame la muerte. Ein Ritter bin ich, frage / Nicht mehr, gib mir den Tod (Sch); Je suis un chevalier, n'espere pas en savoir davantage; donne-moi la mort (Ble); Je suis un chevalie. Tu n'en sauras pas davantage. . . Donne-moi la mort (DH). Ă&#x; Ă˛ĂĽĂĄĂĽ ĂĂĽ ĂĂ Ă¤ĂŽĂĽĂŹ / ĂŽĂŻĂ¨ĂąĂ ĂĂźĂĽĂŹ ĂĄĂĽĂ¤ Ă˘ĂąĂĽĂˇĂ ĂąĂĂťĂľ [I won't tire you by describing my incessant misfortunes]. = Fernando: No lo jures, bien lo creo. Ohne Schwur will ich dir trauen (Sch); Helas! Je puis le croire (Ble); Helas! Moi-meme je ne puis le croire (DH). Ă†Ă°ĂĽĂĄĂ¨ĂŠ ĂŹĂŽĂŠ, ĂŹĂŽĂž ĂĄĂĽĂ¤Ăł. [My lot, my misfortune.] = Fernando: Mi suerte. Mein Los (Sch); De ma destinee (Ble); C'est mon sort (DH).
As we see, the intermediate texts all lack any mention of misfortune or calamity in these contexts. At the moment when Fernando is taken prisoner he says: Enrique, preso quedo, / Ni al mal ni a la fortuna tengo miedo. In the translation this phrase reads, ĂŒĂĂĽ, ĂŁĂŽĂ°ĂĽĂŹĂťĂŞĂĽ, / Ă‡Ă¤ĂĽĂąĂź ĂĄĂłĂ¤ĂĽĂ˛ ĂĄĂĽĂ§Ă°Ă Ă§ĂŤĂ¨ĂˇĂĂŽ Ă˘ĂąĂĽ, Ă?ĂĂ°Ă¨ĂŞĂĽ [A poor wretch I am, I will be indierent to everything here]. Enrique, hier gefangen / Macht weder Ubel mich, noch Gl uck erbangen (Sch); Henri, je suis prisonnier; je ne crains point l'infortune, je suis audessus de l'inconstance du sort (Ble); Henri, je demeure prisonnier, sans craindre ni les tourments de la captivite ni les rigueurs de la fortune (DH).
The Steadfast Prince of Denmark: Boris Pasternak's Last Translation
Compare also with Bal'mont's translation: Ă?ĂĂ°Ă¨ĂŞĂĽ, Ăż Ă˘ ĂŻĂŤĂĽĂĂł ĂŽĂąĂ˛Ă ĂĂłĂąĂź, / Ă?ĂŽ ĂĂĽ ĂąĂ˛Ă°Ă Ă¸ĂłĂąĂź ĂŹĂŽĂĽĂŠ ĂąĂłĂ¤ĂźĂĄĂť [Enrique, I remain a prisoner, but I do not fear my fate].
The Russian word ĂŁĂŽĂ°ĂĽĂŹĂťĂŞĂ (with the root ĂŁĂŽĂ°ĂĽ, a synonym of ĂĄĂĽĂ¤Ă ) is an approximate equivalent of the Spanish words un msero, un triste, un pobre, with which Fernando symbolically humiliates himself, but it is more exactly translated as loser or ne'er-do-well and once again brings the word misfortune into focus. Furthermore, the translation of one of Fenix's speeches intensies the melancholy theme; the rst and the last four lines belong solely to Pasternak and are only remotely related to the original: Ă’ĂŽ Ă¨ ĂĄĂĽĂ¤Ă , Si yo supiera, ĂĄĂĽĂ§ ĂŻĂŽĂ˘ĂŽĂ¤Ă ay Celima, lo que siento, Ă—Ă˛ĂŽ de mi mismo sen- ĂŞĂ°ĂłĂˇĂ¨ĂĂ . ĂŠĂ ĂĄĂť Ă§ĂĂ ĂŤĂ Ăż ĂŻĂ°Ă¨ĂˇĂ¨ĂĂł, timiento ĂŒĂĽĂĂźĂ¸ĂĽ ĂĄĂťĂŤĂŽ ĂĄĂť lisonja al dolor hiciera; pero de la pena ma Ă˘Ă°ĂĽĂ¤Ă . Ă?Ă Ă§ĂŽĂĄĂ°Ă Ă˛ĂźĂąĂż Ăż ĂĂĽ Ă˘ no se la naturaleza, que entonces fuera tris- ĂąĂ¨ĂŤĂ Ăľ, Ă‚ ĂˇĂĽĂŹ Ă˛ĂŽĂąĂŞĂ¨ ĂŹĂŽĂĽĂŠ teza, lo que hoy es melancola. ĂŻĂ°ĂĽĂ¤ĂŹĂĽĂ˛. Ă‚Ă¨Ă¤ĂĂŽ, ĂŽĂĄĂşĂżĂąĂĂĽĂĂźĂż ĂĂĽĂ˛ S olo se que se sentir lo que se sentir no se; Ă’Ă ĂŠĂĂĽ Ă¤ĂłĂŹ ĂŹĂŽĂ¨Ăľ que ilusi on del alma ĂłĂĂťĂŤĂťĂľ. fue. wejhfwhfqwj- Ă?ĂŽ ĂĂ Ă˛ĂŽ Ă˘ĂĽĂ¤Ăź Ă¨ ĂľĂ ĂĂ¤Ă°Ă : eqcwwfqnwfknfewwef Ă—ĂĽĂŹ ĂŁĂŤĂłĂŻĂĽĂŠ ĂŽĂĂ Ă¨ wejhfwhfqwjeqcwwfqnwfknfewwef Ă˘Ă§Ă¤ĂŽĂ°ĂĂĽĂŠ, wejhfwhfqwjeqcfewwefĂ’ĂĽĂŹ ĂŻĂ°ĂŽĂˇĂĂĽĂŠ ĂŻĂłĂąĂŞĂ ĂĽĂ˛ wejhfwhfqwjeqcfewwef ĂŞĂŽĂ°ĂĂ¨, wejhfwhfqwjeqcfewwef Ă?Ă°ĂŽĂĂ¨ĂŞĂ ĂĽĂ˛ Ă¤ĂŽ ĂĂłĂ˛Ă°Ă . wejhfwknfewwef wejhfwknfewwef
That's the trouble, my grief is without reason. If I knew the cause, it would hurt less. I cannot gure out what is causing my anguish. Apparently, one can't explain the mystery of my sadness. But this is the essence of melancholy: the more silly and absurd it is, the deeper it takes root, penetrating to my very bowels. wejhfwknfewwef wejhfwknfewwef
The last four lines in the intermediate translations: Was nun ist Melancholie. / Nur zu qu alen weiĂ&#x; ich mich, / Nicht, warum ich nur mich qu ale; / Es sind T auschungen der Seele (Sch);
Aleksei Semenenko ce qui serait de la tristesse n'est qu'une sombre melancolie. Je sais seulement que je soure; ce que je soure m'est inconnu. C'est une vague illusion de l' ame (Ble); Ce n'est de la tristesse; ce n'est qu'une profonde melancolie. . . Je soure et je le sais; mais je ne sais point ce que me fait souffrir. . . C'est une vague illusion de l' ame (DH);
Again, it is interesting to compare it with Bal'mont's translation: Ă?ĂŽ Ăż ĂŤĂ¨Ă¸Ăź ĂˇĂłĂ˘ĂąĂ˛Ă˘ĂłĂž Ă¨ Ă§ĂĂ Ăž / ĂƒĂŤĂłĂľĂłĂž ĂĄĂŽĂŤĂź ĂŞĂ ĂŞĂ¨Ăľ-Ă˛ĂŽ Ă°Ă Ă, / Ă‚ĂŽĂąĂŻĂ°Ă¨ĂĂ¨ĂŹĂ Ăž ĂŽĂŁĂŽĂ°ĂˇĂĽĂĂĂŽ / Ă„ĂłĂ¸Ă¨ Ă˘ĂąĂ˛Ă°ĂĽĂ˘ĂŽĂŚĂĽĂĂĂŽĂŠ ĂŽĂĄĂŹĂ Ă [But I only feel and know the dull pain of wounds; I am sad to feel the deception of an excited soul].
Apart from this, it should be noted that together with the personalization of the prince's drama, Fernando's discourse becomes more lyrical in the translation, and the intimate intonation characteristic of Pasternak's lyric poetry sometimes becomes dominant. The distinct inuence of Pasternak's poetics is noticeable, for example, in what Fenix says above about melancholy and in the sonnet Fernando reads to Fenix3 . Another example is the episode in the very beginning of the play when one of the Portuguese galleys sinks, which Prince Enrique interprets as an omen. The rst lines of Fernando's speech (Pues descifrarte aqu mi amor intenta causa de un melancolico accidente) are signicantly altered in the translation and have an abstract and lyrical nuance: ĂŽĂ¸Ă¨ĂĄĂŽĂˇĂĽĂ ĂĂ ĂŤĂĽĂ˛ Ă˛ĂŽĂąĂŞĂ¨ ĂłĂĂťĂŤĂťĂŠ. Ă†Ă¨Ă§ĂĂź ĂĂĽ ĂˇĂĽĂ°ĂĂ , Ă ĂąĂ˘ĂĽĂ˛ĂŤĂŽ ĂŁĂŽĂŤĂłĂĄĂ . [The cast of [your] bleak sadness is wrong. Life is light blue, not black]. Wohlan, so soll dir meine Lieb' erhellen, / Was dieser schwermuthsvolle Schein bedeute (Sch); Mon amitie veut interpreter a son tour ce qui cause ta sombre melancolie (Ble); Laissez mon amitie interpreter autrement ce qui cause votre tristesse (DH). 3 In addition to the lyrical touch, one might also point out the use of Russicisms (ĂŞĂ°ĂłĂˇĂ¨ĂĂ , ĂˇĂ ĂąĂ˛ĂŽĂŞĂŽĂŤ, ĂŽĂąĂ˛Ă°ĂŽĂŁ, etc.) as in Pasternak's other translations and especially in the rst version of his Hamlet translation from 1940 (see Semenenko 2007: 95).
The Steadfast Prince of Denmark: Boris Pasternak's Last Translation
4. The Hamlet context Especially interesting, however, are the places where Fernando's speech is transformed in such a way that it bears some resemblance to the discourse of the Prince of Denmark. For example, let us have a closer look at one of the monologues that Fernando delivers to other captives, in which he preaches humbleness and acceptance of fate: y sabe Dios si con ellos quisiera de vuestros cuellos romper los nudos y lazos que os aprisionan; que a fe que os daran libertad antes que a m; mas pensad que favor del cielo fue esta piadosa sentencia; el mejorar a la suerte, que a la desdicha m as fuerte sabe vencer la prudencia. Sufrid con ella el rigor del tiempo y de la Fortuna, deidad barbara importuna, hoy cadaver y ayer or. No permanece jam as y as os mudar a de estado. ÂĄAy Dios! Que al necesitado darle consejo no m as no es prudencia, y en verdad que, aunque quiera regalaros, no tengo esta vez que
daĂ‚Ă¨Ă¤Ă¨Ă˛ ĂĄĂŽĂŁ, ĂľĂŽĂ˛ĂĽĂŤ ĂĄĂť Ăż Ă‡ĂĂ Ă˛Ăź, ĂˇĂ˛ĂŽ Ă˘Ăť ĂĂĽ Ă˘ ĂŞĂ Ă§ĂĽĂŹĂ Ă˛ĂĽ. Ă’ĂŽĂŤĂźĂŞĂŽ Ă°ĂłĂŞĂ¨ ĂŞĂŽĂ°ĂŽĂ˛ĂŞĂ¨, Ă ĂłĂ¤Ăź ĂŹĂŽĂż ĂĂ Ă˝Ă˛ĂŽ Ă˘ĂŽĂŤĂż, Ă‚Ăť ĂĄĂť ĂĄĂŽĂŤĂźĂ¸ĂĽ Ă˘ ĂˇĂ ĂąĂ˛ĂŽĂŞĂŽĂŤĂĽ Ă?ĂĽ Ă˛ĂŽĂŹĂ¨ĂŤĂ¨ĂąĂź, ĂĄĂĽĂ¤ĂĂżĂŞĂ¨. Ă?ĂŽ ĂŻĂŽĂŞĂ ĂąĂłĂ¤ĂźĂĄĂ ĂąĂłĂ°ĂŽĂ˘Ă . Ă…ĂąĂŤĂ¨ ĂŚ Ă°ĂŽĂŞ ĂĂĽĂŽĂ˛ĂŹĂĽĂĂ¨ĂŹ, Ă?Ă Ă¤ĂŽ ĂŻĂ°Ă¨ĂŹĂ¨Ă°Ă¨Ă˛ĂźĂąĂż Ăą ĂĂ¨ĂŹ Ă?Ă˛ĂŽ ĂŹĂłĂ¤Ă°ĂŽĂąĂ˛Ă¨ ĂŽĂąĂĂŽĂ˘Ă . Ă?Ă Ă¤ĂŽ Ă¤ĂłĂŹĂ Ă˛Ăź, ĂĂĽĂąĂŻĂ°ĂŽĂąĂ˛Ă Ă‘Ă˘ĂťĂ¸ĂĽ ĂŻĂŽĂąĂŤĂ Ă Ă˝Ă˛ĂŽĂ˛ ĂŚĂ°ĂĽĂĄĂ¨ĂŠ. Ă…ĂąĂŤĂ¨ ĂŽĂ Ă§Ă Ă¤ĂłĂŹĂ Ă Ă˘ ĂĂĽĂĄĂĽ Ă…ĂąĂ˛Ăź Ă˘ ĂĂĽĂŹ Ă¤ĂŽĂĄĂ°ĂŽĂ˛Ăť ĂˇĂĽĂ°Ă˛Ă . Ă?ĂĽ ĂĂ ĂľĂŽĂ¤Ă¨Ă˛ĂąĂż ĂąĂłĂ¤ĂźĂĄĂ Ă‚ĂĽĂˇĂĂŽ Ă˘ Ă˛ĂŽĂŹ ĂŚĂĽ ĂŻĂŽĂŤĂŽĂŚĂĽĂĂźĂĽ. Ă?ĂŽĂ˘ĂŽĂąĂ˛Ă¨ Ă¨ Ă¨Ă§ĂŹĂĽĂĂĽĂĂźĂż Ăˆ ĂśĂ Ă°Ăż ĂŚĂ¤ĂłĂ˛ Ă¨ Ă°Ă ĂĄĂ . Ă?ĂŽ ĂŻĂŽĂ°ĂżĂ¤ĂŽĂŞ Ă˝Ă˛ĂŽĂ˛ ĂąĂ˛Ă Ă°. Ă—Ă˛ĂŽ ĂŚĂĽ Ăż, Ă¤ĂłĂ°Ă ĂŞ ĂŽĂ˛ĂŻĂĽĂ˛ĂťĂŠ, Ă?Ă¨ĂšĂ¨ĂŹ Ă°Ă Ă§Ă¤Ă Ăž ĂąĂŽĂ˘ĂĽĂ˛Ăť, Ă?Ă¨ĂˇĂĽĂŁĂŽ ĂĂĽ Ă¤Ă Ă˘ Ă¨ĂŹ Ă˘
Ă¤Ă Ă°? God knows, I wish you weren't in prison. But alas [my arms are too short] if it were my will you would not suer in connement. But fate is stern thus far. If our lot cannot be changed, we must accept it that is the basis of wisdom. We received this lot from above not without purpose. If it was meant to be by God, There is a dab of good in it. Fate never remains in the same state. News and changes happen Both to a slave and a king. And this order of things is old. Oh, what a hopeless fool am I, giving advice to the beggars,
no tengo esta vez que nnn daros. nnn Mis amigos, perdonad. nnn nnn
oering nothing as a gift?
In the translation Fernando uses the phrase Ă˛ĂŽĂŤĂźĂŞĂŽ Ă°ĂłĂŞĂ¨ ĂŞĂŽĂ°ĂŽĂ˛ĂŞĂ¨ [literally, my arms are too short], which is used mostly as an ironic and mocking remark about somebody who is unable to do something and is rarely used in reference to oneself. Needless to say, all the intermediate texts lack this remark, nor do they feature an epithet Fernando applies to himself in the end of the speech: Ă¤ĂłĂ°Ă ĂŞ ĂŽĂ˛ĂŻĂĽĂ˛ĂťĂŠ [hopeless fool], which may be a stronger rendering of no es prudencia [in Schlegel's translation, Ist nicht weis, in Beaumelle's, Il est bien penible, et il n'est pas tres-sage, and in Damas-Hinard's il est bein penible]. Such an epithet is of course unthinkable for the Portuguese Prince but is very like the Prince of Denmark's tendency to scold himself (e.g., in the monologue O, what a rogue and peasant slave am I).
5. The games of fate As already discussed, an important motif in Pasternak's Hamlet context is the motif of the acceptance of a predestined path, whatever the end. In this context, fate appears as a historical impersonal force. Throughout the play Fernando often repeats the idea of acceptance of one's lot, which resonated with Pasternak and thus became another point of tension in the translation. For example, Fernando's words to the captives que el tiempo estas miserias representa were translated as: ĂƒĂŤĂżĂ¤Ă¨Ă˛ĂĽ Ă§Ă¤Ă°Ă Ă˘ĂŽ: Ă’ĂłĂ˛ Ă˘ĂąĂĽ ĂąĂłĂ¤ĂźĂĄĂť Ă¨ĂŁĂ°ĂłĂ¸ĂŞĂ¨ Ă¨ Ă§Ă ĂĄĂ Ă˘Ăť. [Be reasonable, this is all games and tricks of fate]. Denn dieĂ&#x; sind Spiele, die die Zeit vollbringet (Sch); Tels sont les changements que le temps sait amener (Ble); Tels sont les changements que le temps amene (DH).
Once again, Pasternak's version is closer to Schlegel's, most likely because it also emphasizes the blind power of fate. The moment of Ferwww.clepul.eu
The Steadfast Prince of Denmark: Boris Pasternak's Last Translation
nando's capture also accentuates the theme of fate, and Pasternak makes it more pronounced: que, en la suerte importuna, / estos son los sucesos de fortuna Êòî ââåðõ, êòî êíèçó. / Îäíîé ñëåïîé ñëó÷àéíîñòè êàïðèçû. [Someone's up, someone's down. These are just whims of blind chance].
Once again, Pasternak's translation is closer to Schlegel than to Calderon: Denn in des Zufalls Reiche ?/ Sind dies des Gl uckes widerw art'ge Streiche (Sch). Tels sont les arrets du destin, et telle est l'inconstance de la fortune (Ble). Ainsi l'a voulu le sort inconstant. Tels sont les caprices de la fortune (DH).
A similar idea of overcoming time is expressed in the form of Fernando's sonnet, and Pasternak follows the original, only slightly changing the tone of this passage. Tales los hombres sus fortunas vieron: en un da nacieron y espiraron, que pasados los siglos horas fueron
Òîãî íå âèäÿò ëþäè ÷óäàêè, ×òî ñðîêè æèçíè èõ çàìåòíû åëå, Ñëåäû âåêîâ, êàê ìèãè, êîðîòêè.
People are strange; they do not see that their lives are barely noticeable; the traces of ages are mere moments.
So haben Menschen auch ihr Los befunden, An einem Tage kamen sie und schwanden; Verossen sind Jahrhunderte nur Stunden (Sch). dans les siecles de l'existence, sa duree n'est qu'un instant (Ble). Car un siecle ecoule n'est qu'un instant (DH).
6. Instead of a conclusion As this paper has demonstrated, in Pasternak's translation of The Steadfast Prince the intermediate texts which might have seriously www.lusosoa.net
inuenced translation choices appear to be much less signicant than Pasternak's consistent appropriation of a seemingly distant author in the context of his Hamletism. In this connection one should pay closer attention to Pasternak's earlier translation of Friedrich von Kleist's Prinz von Homburg. He rst translated it in 1918 but then rewrote it in 1936 for the journal Znamia. However, it was published only in the 1940 collection Selected Translations due to a new view of Kleist as the bard of Prussian militarism; it was only after the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact that Prince Friedrich reappeared in print (Barnes 1998: 132). Pasternak singled out this play among other Kleist's works as his best creation, a historical drama that is realistically performed, condensed and picturesque, that develops uncontrollably and combines poetic passion with a clear course of action (Pasternak 2003-5/V: 41). The inclusion of this play in the Hamlet context seems apposite because its main conict consists of the traditional duty/will controversy: the prince is condemned to death for disobeying orders and at rst asks for mercy; when he learns that he is about to be released, however, he changes his mind and accepts his fate. Kleist's allusions to Hamlet are obvious: the Prince of Homburg, like Hamlet, engages in soliloquies about life and death; following Hamlet's romantic canon, he feels a deep spiritual disbalance (Nur ich allein, auf Gottes weiter Erde, / Bin hilos, ein Verlassner, und kann nichts!) and also tells his beloved to go to a nunnery (Geh an den Main, rat ich, ins Stift der Jungfraun). It is quite obvious that Pasternak considered this play special because of its connection to the Shakespearean tragedy. Thus three texts about three princes from three dierent epochs unexpectedly become unied in the context of Pasternak's poetics and philosophy. On the general scale, this paper has strived to demonstrate that the adaptation of a foreign text to a translator's poetics does not necessarily have to be of an explicit and strategic character but can be manifested on a more subtle level and is deducible only in the context of the writer-translator's entire oeuvre.
References Bal'mont, Konstantin. Trans. 1989. Stoikii prints. Pedro Kalderon de la Barka. Dramy: v 2 kn. Moskva: Nauka, Kn. 1. Barnes, Christopher. 1998. Boris Pasternak: A Literary Biography. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, Vol. 2. Damas-Hinard, Jean Joseph Stanislas Albert. Trans. 1843. Chefsd'oeuvre du theatre espagnol. Traduction nouvelle, avec une introduction et des notes, par M. Damas-Hinard. Calderon. 3 serie. Paris: Librairie de Charles Gosselin. Kleist, Heinrich von. 1954. S amtliche werke. M unchen: Droemersche Verlagsanstalt. La Beaumelle, Victor Laurent Suzanne Mose Angliviel de. Trans. 1827. Le Prince constant. Chefs-d'oeuvre des theatres etrangers. . . traduits en francais. Calderon. T. 2. Paris: Rapilly. MacCarthy, Denis F.. Trans. 1933. The Constant Prince by Perdo Calderon de la Barca. World Drama: Italy, Spain, France, Germany, Denmark, Russia, and Norway. Barrett H. Clark, ed. New York: Dover Publications. 129-164. Pasternak, Boris. Trans. 1961. Stoikii prints. Pedro Kalderon. Piesy. Ă’. 1. ĂŒoskva: Iskusstvo (Biblioteka dramaturga). Pasternak, Boris. 2003-5. Polnoe sobranie sochinenii: S prilozheniiami: v 11 tomakh. Moskva: Slovo, t. 111. Pasternak, Evgenii. 1989. Boris Pasternak: Materialy dlia biograi. Moskva: Sovetskii pisatel'. Schlegel, August Wilhelm von. Trans. 1826. Der Standhafte Prinz. Don Pedro Calderon de la Barca's Schauspiele. 1. Bandchen. Wien: Sollinger. Semenenko, Aleksei. 2005. `Gamletovskii kontekst' Borisa Pasternaka. Scando-Slavica 51: 31-48. Semenenko, Aleksei. 2007. Hamlet the Sign: Russian Translations of Hamlet and Literary Canon Formation. Stockholm: Almqvist and Wiksell International.
Semenenko, Aleksei. 2012. Pasternak's Shakespeare in Wartime Russia. Irena Makaryk and Marissa McHugh, eds. Shakespeare and the Second World War: Memory, Culture, Identity. Toronto: Toronto University Press. 143-162. Zholkovskii, Aleksandr. 2011. Zametki o tekste, podtekste i tsitatsii u Pasternaka: K razlichiiu strukturnykh i genetichskikh sviazei. Aleksandr Zholkovskii. Poetika Pasternaka: Invarianty, struktury, interteksty. Moskva: NLO. 409-42.
An Overview of Bulgarian Literary Translations into Spanish and Catalan (1887-2012) Ventsislav Iko Universitat Pompeu Fabra firstname.lastname@example.org
Abstract The paper begins with a state of the art review on the subject of literary exchange between Bulgaria and the Hispanic countries. Then, an outlook of the translations of Bulgarian literature in Spanish and Catalan is presented. Finally, the translation of Bulgarian literature in Spain is explored as a case study. Keywords Bulgarian literature, Literary translation, Spanish language, Catalan language, Literary exchange, Bulgarian-Hispanic relations, Iberian-Slavonic relations.
1. Introduction The purpose of this article is to provide an overview of the existing literature on the subject of cultural and literary transfer by means of translation between Bulgaria and the Hispanic countries in contrast with leading works in the eld of cultural and literary exchanges, and
to analyse the circulation of Bulgarian literature translated into Spanish and Catalan. The paper will outline the historical and geographical spread of 183 translations of Bulgarian literature published in these two languages between the year of the rst known translation, 1887, and 2012 (the methodological assumption being that at the time of drafting bibliographic sources and databases may not yet be up-to-date with records past 2012); as a case study, an interpretative analysis of the translation of Bulgarian literature in Spain and its outstanding features will also be carried out. The object of analysis is a corpus of literary ction texts written originally in Bulgarian by Bulgarian authors and published as a book (a physical or an electronic one) regardless of its length, in Spanish or Catalan, or in a multilingual edition including any of these two languages. The corpus is built on the basis of bibliographic data extracted from the databases of the SS. Cyril and Methodius National Library of Bulgaria, the Spanish ISBN Agency and UNESCO's Index Translationum. It was complemented with data from the national libraries of Spain, Catalonia, Argentina, Ecuador, Peru and Colombia, from the works of Juez Galvez (2001), Kovatcheva (2003), Guenova (2008), the bibliography of the Next Page Foundation, publishers' and online catalogues and other web sources. Thus, the corpus analysed compiles data for 183 editions between 1887 and 2012 published in Spanish or Catalan translation, not only in Spain and the Spanish speaking countries on the American continent, but also in Bulgaria and even as single multilingual volumes in Germany and Austria. Here it ought to be said that due to diculties in nding a reliable and complete bibliographic source for the publications in the Latin American countries (on the one hand these countries collaborated irregularly, if at all, to the UNESCO database, Index Translationum, while on the other, the search options in the digital catalogues of the national libraries are limited), the available data for these countries covers only the period until 1990.
2. State of the art The analysis of literary translation as a phenomenon of intercultural exchange is a fruitful subject to elds such as cultural history, history www.clepul.eu
An Overview of Bulgarian Literary Translations into Spanish and Catalan 65
of books and translation or sociology. In the following lines, the leading works in these elds will be outlined with the purpose of contrasting them with the current works concerning translation between the Bulgarian and Hispanic literary elds. In the context of cultural history the concept of `cultural transfer' was developed by the historians Michel Espagne and Michael Werner in order to analyse the cultural transfer between France and Germany during the 18th and 19th centuries (Espagne & Werner 1988). These two researchers focused on the reception and spreading of cultural products and the mediating role of the actors that halted or encouraged the cultural or literary importation. The circulation of cultural products has been the object of study by world-leading researchers such as Pascale Casanova (La Republique mondiale des lettres 1999), Franco Moretti (The Novel Il Romanzo 2006 or Atlas of the European Novel: 1800-1900 1999) or Christophe Charle (Theatres in capitals: Naissance de la societe du spectacle a Paris, Berlin, London et Vienne, 1860-1914 2008) who have set out to analyse the processes of transformation and struggles in the eld of power. This was also the subject of Roger Chartier and Hans-J urgen L usenbrinck's studies in the history of book and translation and the work they coordinated on the translation and circulation of European colportage literature (vid. Colportage et lecture populaire: imprimes de large circulation en Europe, XVI eâˆ’XIX e siecles 1996). With a focus on Bulgaria, Svetla Moussakova published articles on the cultural transfer between France and Bulgaria at the beginning of the 20th century (Moussakova 2010) and the transfer of the French symbolist theatre in Bulgaria (Moussakova 2008). She also studied the cultural politics and transfers in Bulgaria in Le miroir identitaire. Histoire de la construction culturelle de l'Europe. Transferts et politiques culturels en Bulgarie (Moussakova 2007). Current research in Sociology of Culture and Sociology of Translation draws on Pierre Bourdieu's cultural theory. It is at the base of several works by scholars such as Jean-Marc Gouanvic, Johan Heilbron and Gisele Sapiro in their study of translated literature. In Translatio: Le marche de la traduction en France a l'heure de la mondialisation (2008a), Sapiro discusses the economic, political and cultural logics that shape the publishing world and the circulation of translated literature www.lusosoa.net
as an excellent platform for cultural diusion. In the same line of research, Sapiro analyses literary exchanges between Paris and New York as the two major centres in the publishing world (Sapiro 2010). Gouanvic, one of the pioneers in this type of analysis, studied the introduction of American science ction in France in the 1950s and the emergence of an autonomous eld of French science ction (vid. Sociologie de la traduction, 1999). In one of his last works Pratique de la traduction sociale (2007) he investigates the translation of the American realist novel in the French literary eld between 1920 and 1960. Gouanvic also authored the article A Bourdieusian Theory of Translation, or the Coincidence of Practical Instances: Field, Habitus, Capital and Illusio (2005), in which he tries to adapt Pierre Bourdieu's sociological theory to translation. The circulation of translated literature from politicised contexts is at the heart of Ioana Popa's work Traduire sous contraintes. Litterature et communisme (1947-1989) (2010), in which the author analyses the circulation of Polish, Czechoslovak, Hungarian and Romanian literary translations in France during the totalitarian regimes in Eastern Europe. In the politicised context of communist Bulgaria, Krassimira Ivleva (2011) studies the translations from French and Russian, and Antoine Berman's `horizon' and `project' of the literary translators from these two languages in the case of the translations of Paul Eluard's poetry and Mikhail Bulgakov's The Master and Margarita. Existing literature on the matter of intercultural and literary exchanges and translation between the Bulgarian and the Hispanic literary spaces deals with a great variety of subjects within the eld, but fails to provide a systematic knowledge thereof. In this relation, the exhaustive bibliographic guide published in 1992 by the SS. Cyril and Methodius National Library in Bulgaria and the then Department of Iberian-Romance Philology at the Soa University St. Kliment Ohridski, which registers the translations of Hispanic books published in Bulgaria between 1882 and 1991, provides a good basis for corpus studies. Francisco Javier Juez Galvez (2001) and Diliana Kovatcheva (2003) presented, each at a dierent scientic meeting, a chronological overview of the translations of Bulgarian literature into Spanish between 1944 and 1995 and point out the aspects that dene www.clepul.eu
An Overview of Bulgarian Literary Translations into Spanish and Catalan 67
them: predominance of Bulgarian rather than Spanish and Latin American translators, low interest from publishers and political or cultural relations with countries like Cuba or Mexico for ideological reasons1 . Previously, the Bulgarian literature in Mexico had been presented by Maria del Carmen Koleva (1989) at the Second International Congress of Bulgarian Studies held in 1986 in Soa. As far as the Catalan literature is concerned, Maia Guenova (2008) provides a detailed bibliographic record with commentary on the subject of literary relations between Bulgaria and Catalonia. This publication includes references to translations of Catalan works in Bulgarian periodicals, critical articles or events that helped promote the Catalan culture in Bulgaria. It is partly based on previous articles by Rumen Stoyanov (1988, 1990, 1991) published in Revista de Catalunya, which give account of the literary and cultural `encounters', in words of the author, between Bulgaria and Catalonia. Translation and reception of Spanish literature in Bulgaria is the subject of study by Stefka Kojouharova in her doctoral thesis (Kojouharova 2010a), as well as in her publications, dedicated to the reception in Bulgaria of Cervantes and El Quijote (Kojouharova 2006), Valle-Inclan (Kojouharova 2008) and Lorca (Kojouharova 2010b). Spanish literature in Bulgaria from the 19th century until the 1980's is the subject of study by Tania Laleva (Laleva 2003), professor at the Complutense University of Madrid. Her work oers a chronological review of the translated works of Spanish authors in Bulgaria and an analysis of their position in the literary polysystem of the receiving country by focusing on the literary and socio-cultural movements in the country 1 Speaking of the rst translations of Bulgarian literature in Spain of the 1940's, Juez G alvez (2001) remarks that they exhibit a phenomenon that is to be seen in the case of later translations too: they were predetermined by the Bulgarian side, since there were no native Spanish speakers who knew Bulgarian suciently well in order to translate literature works from that language, neither was there any editorial (commercial) interest so that the market would demand such works. Indeed, as Juez G alvez points further in his presentation, the only translated book of Bulgarian literature in Spain that enjoyed good distribution and reception was Bruguera's 1984 edition of Bajo el yugo [Under the yoke]. On the other hand, agreements in the eld of culture with Cuba (on a state level) and Mexico (on an interuniversity level) did result in publishing translations of Bulgarian literature in those two countries.
at the time of their introduction. The study also acknowledges the role of indirect translation and the mediating role of French and Russian until 1929 when the rst direct translation is published, Juan Valera's Do na Luz by Boris Shivachev and the subsequent decline of Russian as a pivot language. Argentinean literature in Bulgaria was also discussed in an interview with Liliana Tabakova, professor of Latin American literature at the Soa University, taken by Argentinean translator from Russian Alejandro Gonzalez. The interview was published on the blog site of the Buenos Aires Literary Translators Club (Fondebrider 2012). In 2011, a large project by the Next Page Foundation conducted with the objective to evaluate the translation of Bulgarian literature between 1989 and 2010 into 39 languages and to outline recommendations for its promotion included Spain as a case study (Micheva 2010). Neva Micheva, a translator herself, analyses the conditions for translating Bulgarian literature in Spain on the basis of the existing translations and interviews with professors of Bulgarian literature in Spain, translators and editors, as well as personal experience. Cultural, literary and linguistic relations between Spain and the Slavic countries were also the subject of a conference organised by the Complutense University of Madrid Espa na y el Mundo Eslavo: Relaciones culturales, literarias y ling usticas (Presa Gonzalez 2002). A historical approach to the eld of translation, that Anthony Pym theorized in his work Method in Translation History (1998), is shown by the volumes Historia de la traducci on en Espa na (Lafarga & Pegenaute 2004) or Diccionario hist orico de la traduccion en Espa na (Lafarga & Pegenaute 2009) in Spain. However, they oered limited analysis of the Bulgarian (and Slavic) literature as a whole, especially if compared to the analysis of other literatures such as the English or the French ones. In Bulgaria a history of translation was initiated with Ă?Ă°ĂĽĂ˘ĂŽĂ¤ĂĂ Ă°ĂĽĂśĂĽĂŻĂśĂ¨Ăż ĂĂ ĂĽĂ˘Ă°ĂŽĂŻĂĽĂŠĂŞĂ¨Ă˛ĂĽ ĂŤĂ¨Ă˛ĂĽĂ°Ă Ă˛ĂłĂ°Ă¨ Ă˘ Ă ĂşĂŤĂŁĂ Ă°Ă¨Ăż Ă˘ 8 Ă˛ĂŽĂŹĂ . Ă’ĂŽĂŹ 1. Ă€ĂĂŁĂŤĂ¨ĂŠĂąĂŞĂ ĂŤĂ¨Ă˛ĂĽĂ°Ă Ă˛ĂłĂ°Ă [Reception of the European literatures in Bulgaria in 8 volumes. Volume 1. English literature] (Shurbanov & Trendalov 2000), the rst of eight volumes prepared by the Institute for Literature at the Bulgarian Academy of Sciences, whose last two volumes however, including the one dedicated to the Romance languages, are yet to be published.
An Overview of Bulgarian Literary Translations into Spanish and Catalan 69
Research onto the role of the mediating agents and the gure of the translator in Spain yielded results such as the above-mentioned Diccionario historico de la traduccion en Espa na (Lafarga & Pegenaute 2009) or the Diccionari de la traducci o catalana (Bacard & Godayol 2011), which provide biographic data about the translators without expanding on their role in the promotion of one literature or another. In Bulgarian studies the gure of the translator mostly remained neglected. In the aforementioned article, Laleva (2003) pays tribute to the most prolic translators from the Spanish language to Bulgarian in the 1960s and 1970s, but it was not until the highly acclaimed volumes Ïðåâîäúò Ëèöà è ìàñêè [Translation Faces and masks] (2007, 2010) by journalist and literary critic Emil Basat were published, that a translator from Spanish was at the centre of attention. In his two volumes, Basat portrays via interviews some of the most prominent translators in Bulgaria, including the translator from Spanish Todor Neikov among them. From this literature review it is clear that while research in translation and reception are a subject of interest for scholars of literary exchanges and translation between the Bulgarian and the Hispanic literary elds, works with historical or sociological approach focused on the circulation of translations and the role of the translator between Bulgaria and the Hispanic countries are still to be undertaken.
3. Case study: the translation of Bulgarian literature into Spanish and Catalan (1887-2012) 3.1. Outlook of the translation ow As mentioned in the introduction, the corpus of translations from Bulgarian to Spanish consists of 183 editions of 152 titles and anthologies, which represents a relatively low number considering the temporal and geographical span of the study. Furthermore, the data shows an uneven chronological and geographical distribution of the editions (Figure 1). As evidenced by the data in Table 1, three main regions emerge as publication centres for Bulgarian literature in Spanish (and Catalan) translation: Spain, where translation of Bulgarian texts is occasional www.lusosoa.net
Figure 1. Chronological distribution of the translations of Bulgarian literature per region.
between the 1940s and late 1990s, and growing in the last two decades; Latin America, where translations were published predominantly in Cuba in the 1970s and 1980s as a result of the relations between the political regimes of the two countries and occasionally in other Spanish speaking Latin American countries; and Bulgaria, as an exporting country of its own literature between 1957 and 1993 as a result of culture policy of the state and after 2002. Besides the translations in Latin America, Bulgaria and Spain, two multilingual editions of poetry including translation into Spanish were published in a German-speaking environment in the cities of Graz and Halle. The links of their authors Zwetelina Damjanova, a Wien-based author, translator and artist, and Ivan Roidov a poet and translator from German to that culture and possibly to the specic editorial system may account for the choice of place of publication; however, the publication of a multilingual edition, leaving aside possible personal motives for such decision, corresponds to the specicity of the genre and a tendency to prepare these goods for international circulation, making them available to a larger audience (and therefore more marketable?). The same practice is observed with regards to the translations made in Bulgaria after 2002: most of them belong to genres of poetry and children's literature (the only exceptions being one playwright and one short story) and if not published as a bi- or multilingual editions, separate translations of the same texts in at least one more language do exist. It also has to be considered, that most of these editions in Bulgawww.clepul.eu
An Overview of Bulgarian Literary Translations into Spanish and Catalan 71
Table 1. Geographic distribution of the translations of Bulgarian literature. Region
Latin America Argentina Colombia Costa Rica Cuba (Including editions in collaboration with Bulgaria) Ecuador Mexico Peru Venezuela Bulgaria In collaboration (Bulgaria-Cuba) Spain Other Countries
64 3 1 1 48 1 5 2 3 74 20 43 2
ria are short ones, of less than 25 pages. Although the destination of these translations is unclear they might be intended for sale in the country of production one might speculate that such practice of translation and publication follows marketing and economic reasoning. Indeed, according to Sapiro (2008b: 203), in an extremely commercialized book market, the norms of translation are subordinated to the objective of maximizing prot in short term. Besides economic forces, the production and circulation of symbolic goods also depends on political and cultural forces, and on their balance or the structure of the eld of cultural production in the source and target countries (vid. Heilbron and Sapiro 2007, Sapiro 2008b). [I]n countries where the economic eld is subordinated to the political eld and the cultural production authorities and the organisations of the intellectual professions are stately run, like in fascist or communist countries, the production and the circulation of symbolic goods are strongly determined by political factors and stakes (Sapiro 2008b: 201) [my translation]2 . 2
[Ainsi], dans des pays ou le champ economique est subordonne au champ poli-
Such were the cases of Bulgaria and Cuba during the Communist regimes. From 1957 until 1991 the Bulgarian state publishing houses printed 51 translations in Spanish3 . The government's commitment to the translation and exportation of the national literature is evidenced by the creation of the `Foreign language press' (Izdatelstvo na chuzhdi ezitsi) which from its creation in 1958 overtakes the publication of Spanish translations until its reorganisation as Soa-press in 1967 (see Table 2). The translations in this period are the result of a strong `exportation channel', created by the State following the model of other socialist countries and owe their existence to state politics geared toward the exportation of literary works by publishing houses created for this purpose (Popa 2006: 215)4 . This `exportation channel' had the same role as its counterpart in the case of Romanian translations in French under communism, where it was meant to compensate for the weakness of the `ocial channel' (Popa 2006: 215), or in other words, for the scarcity or lack of exportation driven by demand in the receiving culture. Further research on the subject of the circulation of these translations should tique et ou les instances de production culturelles ainsi que l'organisation des professions intellectuelles sont etatiques, comme dans les pays fascistes ou communistes, la production et la circulation des biens symboliques sont tres fortement determinees par des contraintes et des enjeux politiques (Sapiro 2008b: 201). 3 Although the communist regime ended in 1989, the state publishing house Sviat [World] printed two more editions in Spanish until 1991. Only one edition was published in Spanish between 1989 and 1991 outside the state publishing houses. 4 Ioana Popa proposed a model of six translation channels to describe the circulation of translated literature from the Eastern Block into French: 1) the `exportation' channel describes translations, published directly in the target language by the country of origin in order to export abroad the literary value system of the ocial politics; 2) the `ocial' channel examines works translated and published by foreign publishing houses, which were permitted to circulate in the home country and whose translation abroad required the permission of the state ocials too; 3) the `patrimonial' channel explains translations of works, published in the country of origin and in author's native language before the establishment of Communism and that were authorised during the regime; 4) the `semi-ocial' channel shows the translations of texts, published originally in the home country, but banned later on; 5) the `parallel' channel portrays translations of texts that were originally published by unocial publishing structures in the home country or abroad; 6) the `direct' and `in transit' channels account for translations that constitute the original edition of a text and were based on manuscripts.
An Overview of Bulgarian Literary Translations into Spanish and Catalan 73
Table 2. Publishers in Bulgaria during the communist era. Publishing house
Izdatelstvo na chuzhdi ezitsi (1958-1967) Soa-press (1967-) Sviat Balgarski hudozhnik Others
9 11 13 15 4
focus on where and how they were distributed and what was their reception. The temporal distribution curve in Figure 1 shows an increase in the number of translations in the eighties, when some 20 children's and youth books were published mainly in the state publishing house Balgarski hudozhnik [Bulgarian painter] and in collaboration with Havana's children's books editing house Nueva Gente. These translations come at a time when Bulgaria and the regime have gained symbolic capital on the image of the child and after the International Children's Assembly Banner of Peace was established in 1979 by the then Committee for Culture Chairlady Ludmila Zhivkova (1942-1981) under the auspices of UNESCO5 . The event was organised four times in 1979, 1982, 1985 and 1988. For Elenkov (2008: 398, quoted in Gencheva, 2012: 20), [t]he `Banner of Peace' Assembly and movement bear further symbolic potential whereby the socialist project is talked about in terms of aesthetic and all-human categories: (. . . ) Banner of Peace symbols such as the Child, Peace, Unity, Creativity, Beauty (. . . ) carry aesthetic and ethical charge for the agging socialist utopia. (. . . ) By its nature, the image of the child and especially the gifted and protected child concentrates immense symbolic capital for its nation (Gencheva 2012: 20).
It can be assumed that, on the one hand, this positive image of the child favoured a greater interest in children's literature from Bulgaria; 5
The Committee for Culture was a state institution with the rank of ministry.
on the other, especially among the socialist countries, children's literature, thanks to its great reach, could be used as a tool of indoctrination and improve, moreover, the image of the Bulgarian communist system. In this regard, the exportation of children's books by the Bulgarian state seems to follow a new cultural policy set by Zhivkova, who [t]hrough her interpretations of the new social role of culture and art, [. . . ] provides novel means of ideological signication for the Bulgarian state (Gencheva 2012: 20). In previous years, in the 1970s, only ve volumes of children's literature were translated for exportation. After children's and youth literature, a look at the genre distribution shows narrative ction to be the preferred type of texts for exportation (Table 3) and within this genre the historical novel and the short stories published in anthologies, which allow for a greater sample of the national literature to be promoted. Nevertheless, this tells us little in terms of the symbols that the state wanted to promote and export and further analysis of the translated titles and authors no preference seems to be shown for a certain author should ll that gap. The available data on the translators of Bulgarian literature in Bulgaria between 1957 and 1991 (see Table 4) reveals that a large part of the texts published in that period were rendered by Bulgarian translators, i.e. they were inverse translations6 . Occasionally translation teams of Bulgarian and native Spanish speaking translators worked on a single volume.
Table 3. Genres published in Spanish translation in Bulgaria. Genre
Poetry Narrative ction Theater Children's and youth literature Others
4 17 1 27 3
0 2 0 0 0
11 1 1 7 0
Here `inverse translation' is used to designate a translation rendered from the mother tongue into the foreign language of the translator.
An Overview of Bulgarian Literary Translations into Spanish and Catalan 75
Most of the native Spanish speakers who translated Bulgarian literature individually or in teams were of Cuban origin. This was a direct result of the measures taken by the Bulgarian government after 1970 to expand the cultural relations with Cuba by promoting teaching of Bulgarian language and literature in Cuba and by oering yearly scholarships and hosting Cuban students to study Bulgarian language and literature at the Soa University in order to prepare them to become literary translators of Bulgarian literature. The policy of expanding the cultural, economic and political relations between Bulgaria and Cuba after 1970 is a consequence of the close relations between the communist parties ruling both countries, especially after a visit of the Bulgarian Head of State to Cuba that year. These close relations and the politicisation of the cultural elds of the two countries facilitate the circulation of symbolic goods between them. The following year, 1971, the rst of 48 editions of Bulgarian literary texts published in Havana by 1990 is released; the second one, in 1972, is a special issue of the literary magazine Uni on dedicated to the Bulgarian literature. In 1974 the rst edition in collaboration between the publishing houses of the two countries is published and this cooperation becomes even more fruitful in the 1980s when another 18
Table 4. Publications in Bulgaria by nationality of the translators7 . Translations by:
Bulgarian translators Native spanish speakers In collaboration Unidentied translators
20 21 7 4
1 3 0 18
I have considered translator Juanita Linkova (author of 3 translations and collaborator in another with a Bulgarian translator) as a Native Spanish speaker since she was born and raised to a certain age in Uruguay and despite the fact that she moved to Bulgaria in her mid-teens in 1949, which means that by the time her rst translation into Spanish was published in 1966, she had spent the greater part of her conscious life in Bulgaria. In light of this, I acknowledge that such decision might be debatable, but it doesn't signicantly change the picture.
Table 5. Genres of Bulgarian literature translated in Latin America. Genre
Rest of the countries
Poetry Narrative ction Theatre Children's and youth literature
3 25 2 18
8 6 1 1
translations of mostly children's and youth books and a few novels are published. The available data, albeit limited, indicates the involvement of Cuban and Bulgarian translators, working in a team or individually. Alongside children's and youth literature, narrative ction is the other genre of choice for importation in Cuba (Table 5). Within it, a clear preference is shown for the short story and the historical novel and, interestingly enough, for a series of detective novels by writer Bogomil Rainov: 6 of his books were published in Havana between 1978 and 1984. Further analysis of the translated titles and authors, as well as a comparison with the translation ow of Cuban literature in Bulgaria, may shed light on the ideas that were transferred between the Bulgarian and Cuban cultures. Outside Cuba the available data shows sporadic distribution of translations of Bulgarian literature (see Table 6). Mexico appears as the other
Table 6. Cities of publication of Bulgarian literature in Latin America. City
Havana (Cuba) Mexico D.F. (Mexico) Bogota (Colombia) Buenos Aires (Argentina) Caracas (Venezuela) Guayaquil (Ecuador) Lima (Peru) San Jose (Costa Rica)
48 5 1 3 3 1 2 1
An Overview of Bulgarian Literary Translations into Spanish and Catalan 77
country that publishes Bulgarian literature thanks to its cultural relations with Bulgaria, this time within the frame of an inter-university agreement between the National Autonomous University of Mexico and the Soa University (Juez Galvez 2001). Some of the 5 translations published in Mexico are re-editions of translations published previously in Bulgaria or Cuba.
3.2. Bulgarian literature translated in Spain 3.2.1. Periodization During the analysed period, 43 editions of Bulgarian translated texts are published in Spain with irregular temporal distribution. Bibliographic data before the creation of the Index Translationum in 1932 is scarce and, to the best of my knowledge, the only piece of Bulgarian literature and the rst one translated in the Spanish state of this period is one indirect translation from French into Catalan by the folklorist and poet Pau Bertran i Bros (1853-1891), La poesia popular b ulgara: Noticia critica ab mostres en llengua catalana [Bulgarian folk poetry: Critical review and sample in Catalan language] published by La Renaixensa in 1887 after the repercussion the liberation of Bulgaria had in Europe at the time. No other translation is known to have been published until 1944 and from that point on, the distribution of Bulgarian literature can be divided into four stages if we adapt to our case the periodic classication model that Garcia Sala (2011: 61) proposed for the translation of Russian literature into Catalan. Thus, the following periods are distinguished: 1) enthusiastic period, between 1944-1949; as a matter of fact, the translations of this period were made between 1942 and 1945, but their publication was in 1944 and 1949; 2) a period of silence between 1950 and 1977; 3) a period of recovery between 1978 and 1989: while this date might be somewhat arbitrary given that there is another period without translations between 1984 and 1995, I take 1989 as a divisory line for its political and social importance in the countries of Eastern Europe; 4) a period of normalisation, from 1990 to nowadays.
3.2.2. Enthusiastic period, silence and recovery During the initial period, between 1944 and 1949, the rst signicant translations of Bulgarian works into Spanish take place with the translation of classic authors: an anthology of short stories by Elin Pelin (Stylos, 1944) and the novels El segador [The Reaper] by Yordan Yovkov (EPESA, 1944) and Bajo el yugo [Under the Yoke] (Jose Janes, 1949) by Ivan Vazov. The translator in all three cases is the Bulgarian Todor Neikov (1913-1984), in collaboration with Manuel Mara de Barandica for Elin Pelin's short stories and with Juan Eduardo Z un iga (1919) for the translations of El segador and Bajo el yugo. It is worth noting that these rst translations are the result of the enthusiasm of beginner translators, hence the classication of this period as enthusiastic. This promising beginning, however, is followed by a period of silence between 1950 and 1977, conditioned by the ideologically opposing totalitarian regimes in the two countries, which had broken their diplomatic relations in 1946. This state of aairs is maintained until 1970 when a step towards the restoration of the relations is taken and a consular and commercial representation agreement between Madrid and Soa is reached. The submission of the cultural elds in each of the countries to the corresponding political eld means that a meeting point between the cultures cannot be established. Even if the exporting nation had at its disposal an entire infrastructure to translate and publish literature, the Spanish regime too had its means of protection from foreign inuences: Censorship removed everything that was inconvenient [to the regime]. (. . . ) Everything that was published through any kind of media, without exception, had to pass through the bureaucracy of censorship, even ministers' statements. (. . . ) [A]ll literature ideologically hostile to Franco's regime and all works that entailed similar dangers by referring to social conicts or communist books were attacked (Rioja Barrocal 2008) [my translation]8 . 8
[Podemos armar que] la censura eliminaba todo aquello que no convena [. . . ]. Todo lo que se publicaba a traves de cualquier medio de expresi on, sin excepci on, tena que pasar por los tr amites burocr aticos de la censura, incluso hasta las declaraciones de los ministros. [. . . ] Con respecto a los criterios polticos, se arremeta contra toda literatura ideol ogicamente hostil al franquismo, as como contra todas las obras que entra naran peligros semejantes por referirse a conictos sociales o a libros comu-
An Overview of Bulgarian Literary Translations into Spanish and Catalan 79
These circumstances were obviously unfavourable both for the Bulgarian propaganda machine and for the local publishing houses to edit Bulgarian literature and it comes as little surprise that the ideological opposition resulted in an absolute vacuum in terms of translation and edition of Bulgarian texts. During that period just a single sample of Bulgarian literature is published in Spain and it is a short tale, or a fable, translated by Moises-Pedro Abad, most probably from Italian, and printed in the same house alongside other similar tales from the same series, originally edited in Milan, Italy: La manzana de oro: Cuento b ulgaro [The golden apple: A Bulgarian tale] (Valles, 1970). Diplomatic relations between the two countries were restored in 1977, two years after the end of the dictatorship in Spain. This also marks the beginning of a third period, one of restoration of cultural relations, in which Bulgarian texts start to appear in Spain. In 1978 the Autonomous University of Madrid published an anthology of short stories. The distribution activity of the Bulgarian cultural institutions is soon evidenced by two volumes of poetry by Nicola Vaptsarov in 1980 and Lachezar Elenkov in 1983. Both volumes were printed in Madrid, but the edition is by the Committee for Culture of Bulgaria and the Union of Bulgarian Writers, respectively. Apparently, these two editions were translated and prepared for printing in Bulgaria as the translators of Vaptsarov's volume are Cubans Pedro de Oraa and Jose Martnez Mato, whose translations of Bulgarian literature are also published in Bulgaria and Cuba, and Elenkov's translator is Bulgarian Ivan Kanchev. The translation of Vaptsarov, a poet aliated to the communist cause and the anti-fascist movement, collects poems in defence of the working class man and a poem from his cycle on the Spanish Civil War, titled Spain. Therefore, this edition may be interpreted as an attempt by the exporting regime to promote its socialist ideals alongside a topic relevant for the target culture, such as the Spanish Civil War, and to improve the relations between Bulgaria and the relatively new Spanish democratic society. In 1983 Juan Eduardo Z un iga, the co-translator of two books in the mid-1940s, translated an anthology of Peyo Yavorov titled Viento de medianoche [Midnight Wind] (Ayuso, 1983). In 1984 Bruguera re-edited nistas (Rioja Barrocal 2008).
Bajo el yugo in paperback, a book format that facilitates the access to a wider public, and included an introduction by the translators, Neikov and Z un iga. These several translations scattered between 1978 and 1984 mark the beginning of a recovery process for the literary transfer from Bulgaria into Spain and their circulation is a result both of the cultural policy of Bulgaria as an exporting country and of agents on the book market in the Spanish eld of importation.
3.2.3. Normalisation period The start of the normalisation period is related to the collapse of the socialistic regimes in the Eastern Block in 1989 and the establishment of democracy in Bulgaria, when the free contact with the countries of Western Europe is opened at all levels. In this new political environment, the literary exchange gained momentum after 1995 and during this period the number of translations of Bulgarian literature published in Spain reached 33 volumes. While it is a substantial increase with respect to previous stages, this is a relatively low number in itself. As Sapiro (2008b: 201) arms, the logics of importation and the reception [of symbolic goods] are in dependence on the uneven character of the cultural exchanges (Heilbron 1999, Casanova 1999) and the relations of dominance between the source culture and the target culture [. . . ] (Heilbron & Sapiro 2002, 2007) [my translation]9 . Regarding the cultural exchanges, and literary transfer in particular, translations from languages positioned in the periphery of the world system of translations, like Bulgarian, into semiperipheral languages, like Spanish, are usually fewer than the other way round (Heilbron 1999)10 . 9 Les logiques d'importation et de reception [des biens symboliques] dependent aussi du caractere inegal des ces echanges culturels (Heilbron 1999; Casanova 1999) et des rapports de domination entre la culture-source et la culture-cible sous ces trois rapports, politique, economique et culturel [. . . ] (Heilbron et Sapiro 2002 et 2007) (Sapiro 2008b: 201). 10 Based on statistical data about the ow of international translations, Heilbron (1999) analyses international book translation as a system with its own structure of centre and periphery, in which the translations circulate unevenly and according to
An Overview of Bulgarian Literary Translations into Spanish and Catalan 81
The relations of dominance between two cultures are dependent on the symbolic capital accumulated by each of them. Cultures, and literatures, with less symbolic capital are in a dominated position with respect to cultures with greater symbolic capital. The symbolic capital of a given culture and literature, and its position of dominance, shape the symbolic dimension of a translation from this culture on the international book market. The statistical data draws a very diverse picture of the translated Bulgarian literature. The 33 translations correspond to 23 dierent authors (without counting the ones in the 4 anthologies); 2 of them are self-published editions and the rest are published by 24 dierent entities publishing houses and cultural organisations. 25 translators have worked on these editions, not counting of course the unknown translators of two volumes. In most cases they are native Bulgarian translators (Table 7), and only ve volumes, four in Castilian (Spanish) and one in Catalan, are rendered by a translator whose mother tongue is the target language; of those, one was from French. In nine other cases a Bulgarian translator and a target language native speaker have collaborated, despite the latter not always being an expert in the source language, as evidenced by the cases of Francisco Uriz and Joan Casas. It is also
Table 7. Editions by nationality of the translators in Spain, 1989-2012. Translations by:
Bulgarian translators Native spanish speakers In collaboration Unidentied translators
17 5 9 2
the hierarchy of the linguistic groups. Within this system, English occupies a hypercentral position, followed by French, German and Russian (now in decline) as central languages. Spanish, Italian, Danish, Swedish, Polish and Czech occupy a semi-central / semi-peripheral position, while the rest of the languages are found in the periphery. Translations from the centre to the periphery are predominant and central languages often play a mediation role between (semi)peripheral languages.
Table 8. Publisher type in Spain, 1989-2012. Published by:
Cultural organizations Publishing houses Self-publishing
9 22 2
worth pointing out that some of the translators render their own works, besides other texts, like Rada Panchovska and Zhivka Baltadzhieva. Most of the translations are published in small publishing houses, while cultural organisations also play a signicant role by publishing or supporting the edition of nine volumes (Table 8). The most translated genres are poetry and narrative ction, with 15 volumes each (Table 9). One children's book had two editions, one in Castilian and one in Catalan. The internationally acclaimed theatre play El coronel ocell [The colonel bird] (Proa, 2002) reached the Catalan stage in November 2000 in translation by Maia Guenova and Joan Casas11 . Despite the variety of authors, translators and publishers, there is a noticeable trend in this period towards translating and publishing new, contemporary texts (Table 10). 10 translations are published in a period of less than ve years after the publication of the original and further 5
Table 9. Genres of Bulgarian literature translated in Spain. Genre
Poetry Narrative ction Theatre Children's and youth literature
0 3 0 0
0 1 0 0
3 2 0 0
15 15 1 2
By that time, El coronel ocell had been awarded the British Council International Playwriting Award in 1997 and the Enrico Maria Salerno award in Italy in 1999. It had been presented at the Avignon festival in 1999 and staged in numerous theatres in Europe.
An Overview of Bulgarian Literary Translations into Spanish and Catalan 83
in a period of between 6 and 10 years. 6 volumes of the 13 translations, for which this data cannot be conrmed, can also be assumed to enter in one of these two categories as contemporary texts, since they are from active authors who are either settled in Spain, like Petranka Kostadinova, and therefore have better access to the Spanish publishing market, or are related to it through their activity as translators, like Rada Panchovska and Zhivka Baltadzhieva.
3.2.4. Translations into Catalan So far in this article, translations of Bulgarian literature into Catalan have been studied as a constituent part of the translations in Spain as a whole and were therefore a bit overlooked due to their small number. Despite accounting to only 3 for the entire period of the study, 2 of them deserve some attention. As it was mentioned earlier, La poesia popular b ulgara: Noticia critica ab mostres en llengua catalana collected the rst translation of a Bulgarian piece of literature, 13 folk songs in this case, in the Spanish state. This Catalan translation from 1887, based on a French edition, long preceded any translations into Spanish. In his review, the author, Pau Bertran i Bros, described Bulgarian folk traditions and pro-
Table 10. Temporal distance between the translation in Spain and the original publication.
0-5 years 6-10 years 11-20 years 21-50 years 50+ years Unidentied
0 0 0 1 1 1
0 0 0 0 0 1
0 1 0 1 2 1
10 5 1 2 2 13
vided a commentary about Bulgarian history and its recent liberation from the Ottoman Empire in 1878, all topics of relevance for the Catalan cultural restoration movement at the time. The other signicant translation in Catalan is El coronel ocell by world-renown playwright Hristo Boytchev and it remains the only Bulgarian play translated and published as a book volume in Spain. The play, translated by Maia Guenova and Joan Casas, was staged at the National Theatre of Catalonia on November 9th , 2000 and received positive reviews in the press.
3.2.5. Direct translation, indirect translation and mediation Third language or culture mediation is a common feature in translation between (semi)peripheral languages and the role of French (English, German and Russian, to a lesser extent) as a central, intermediary language until early 20th century is a well known example in this regard. In the context of Slavonic-Iberian literary relations some examples are the translations of Polish literature into Portuguese (vid. Pie ta 2012), or of Russian literature into Spanish (for instance, vid. Obolenskaya 1990). Whereas mediation in the form of indirect translation is, curiously enough, a rare occurrence for Bulgarian literature translated in Spain (from the 43 texts registered, only 2 are rendered from French, 1 supposedly from Italian and the information is missing for another 4), the cultures of central languages such as the French and English still serve as an intermediary. These central languages function [. . . .] as means of communication between language groups which are themselves peripheral or semi-peripheral (Heibron 1999: 435) and set the tone, which the Spanish publishers would later follow: a triptych from Angel Wagenstein, Vesko Branev's El hombre vigilado [The watched man] (Galaxia Gutenberg, 2009), Hristo Boitchev's play El coronel ocell (Proa, 2009) and Georgi Gospodinov's Una novela natural [A natural novel] (Saymon, 2009) although the publication of Una novela natural is as much an idea of the translator, Neva Micheva, (Micheva 2011: 5) are all a case in point of translations gaining recognition on the inwww.clepul.eu
An Overview of Bulgarian Literary Translations into Spanish and Catalan 85
ternational or at least on the French market before being published in Spain. The fact that most of the above examples were rendered by Bulgarian translators (working alone or in team with a target language native speaker), and that Vesko Branev's El hombre vigilado is an indirect translation via French, clearly indicates insuciency of target language native translators with adequate competences in Bulgarian as a source language and suggests that translations from Bulgarian are susceptible to indirect translation in certain circumstances.
4. Final remarks The corpus study of the translations of Bulgarian literature into Spanish and Catalan has allowed to identify three regions with greater translation activity: Bulgaria, Cuba within Latin America, and Spain. Further analysis identied both the positive and negative role of the political regime in the process of exportation of the national literature. The state publishing houses in Bulgaria translated national literature with the objective to export it. The politicised contexts in Bulgaria and Cuba, and the close relations between the regimes favoured the translation of Bulgarian literature in that country. The collaboration between translators and publishing houses from the two countries further facilitated the literary exchange. On the other hand, political factors limited the circulation of Bulgarian literature in Spain. After an enthusiastic beginning for the translation, the ideologically opposing regimes froze all relations. The circulation of translations was restored after the end of Franco's regime in Spain, and then normalised with the fall of the Iron Curtain. The analysis of the bibliographic data of the Bulgarian literary translations in Spain shows they grew in a free-market literary exchange but kept their sporadic character. The available data for the translations in Latin America is limited and further bibliographic research is required in order to obtain full and actual picture of the translation ow in these countries, however the an-
alysis of the data shows intense relations with Cuba and scarce presence of Bulgarian literature in the other Latin American countries. At the same time, these results open the way for new study subjects. In the context of politicised transfer, the study of the authors and works that were translated in both directions and their relation to politics seems pertinent. In this regard, the research of the circulation and reception of the volumes translated in Bulgaria is also necessary. The study of the translations ow from Spain and the Latin American countries in Bulgaria will give a better understanding of the circulation of translated literature between these cultural spaces and will surely present much interesting data. Further research lanes would focus on the role of the agents translators, publishing houses, diplomats, state institutions, etc. who mediated the process of cultural transfer. The study of the literary transfer between Bulgaria and the Hispanic world requires therefore still a lot of research.
Acknowledgments Special thanks are due to Professors Pilar Estelrich Arce and Diana Sanz Roig for their valuable comments and discussions during the present investigation.
References Bacard, Montserrat and Pilar Godayol, eds. 2011. Diccionari de la traduccio catalana. Vic: Eumo. Basat, Emil. 2007. Ïðåâîäúò Ëèöà è ìàñêè, ò.1 [The Translation Faces and Masks, v.1]. Soa: Raindal. Basat, Emil. 2010. Ïðåâîäúò Ëèöà è ìàñêè, ò.2 [The Translation Faces and Masks, v.2]. Soa: Raindal. Casanova, Pascale. 1999. La Republique mondiale des lettres. Paris: Editions du Seuil. Charle, Cristophe. 2008. Theatres en capitales: Naissance de la societe du spectacle a Paris, Berlin, Londres et Vienne, 1860-1914. Paris: Albin Michel. Chartier, Roger and Hans-J urgen L usebrink. 1996. Colportage et lecture populaire: Imprimes de large circulation en Europe, XVIe-XIXe siecles. Paris: IMEC editions. Cohen, Margaret and Carolyn Dever. 2002. The Literary Channel: The International Invention of the Novel. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Del Carmen-Koleva, Maria. 1989. Áúëãàðñêàòà ëèòåðàòóðà â Ìåêñèêî [Bulgarian literature in Mexico]. Paper presented at the Second International Congress of Bulgarian Studies, Soa, Bulgaria, May 21 June 3. Âòîðè ìåæäóíàðîäåí êîíãðåñ ïî áúëãàðèñòèêà. Ñîôèÿ, 23 ìàé 3 þíè 1986 ã. Äîêëàäè. 23. Ìëàäè áúëãàðèñòè: Êîëîêâèóì. Soa: Bulgarian Academy of Sciences. 326-333. Elenkov, Ivan. 2008. Êóëòóðíèÿò ôðîíò: Áúëãàðñêàòà êóëòóðà ïðåç åïîõàòà íà êîìóíèçìà ïîëèòè÷åñêî óïðàâëåíèå, èäåîëîãè÷åñêè îñíîâàíèÿ, èíñòèòóöèîíàëíè ðåæèìè [The Cultural Front: Bulgarian Culture during the Communist Era Political Management, Ideological Basis, Institutional Regimes]. Soa: Institute for Studies of the Recent Past, Open Society Institute and Ciela Publishers.
Espagne, Michel and Michael Werner. 1988. Transferts: Les relations interculturelles dans l'espace franco-allemand (XVIIIe et XIXe siecle). Paris: Editions Recherche Sur les Civilisations. Fondebrider, Jorge. 2012. La literatura argentina en Bulgaria. Blog del Club de traductores literarios de Buenos Aires, March 27th. Accessed January 25th, 2014. http://clubdetraductoresliterariosdebaires.blogspot.com/2012/03/la-lit eratura-argentina-en-bulgaria.html. Garca Sala, Ivan. 2011. Tolstoi en catalan: el caso de Ivan Ilich. Nina Kressova, ed. Lev Tolst oi en el mundo contemporaneo. Granada: Comares, 2011. 61-71. Gencheva, Yuliyana. 2012. The International Children's Assembly `Banner of Peace': A Case Study of Childhood under Socialism. Red Feather Journal: An International Journal of Children's Visual Culture 3:1. 12-23. Gouanvic, Jean-Marc. 1999. Sociologie de la traduction: La sciencection americaine dans l'espace culturel francais des annees 1950. Arras: Artois presses universite. Gouanvic, Jean-Marc. 2005. A Bourdieusian Theory of Translation, or the Coincidence of Practical Instances: Field, `Habitus', Capital and 'Illusio '. The Translator 11:2. 147-166. Gouanvic, Jean-Marc. 2007. Pratique sociale de la traduction. Le roman realiste americain dans le champ litteraire francais (1920-1960). Arras: Artois Presses Universite. Guenova, Maia. 2008. Relacions literaries entre Bulgaria i Catalunya. Quaderns: Revista de traducci o 15. 119-126. Heilbron, Johan and Gisele Sapiro. 2002. La traduction litteraire, un objet sociologique. Actes de la recherche en sciences sociales 144. 3-5. Heilbron, Johan and Gisele Sapiro. 2007. Outline for a Sociology of Translation. Current Issues and Future Prospects. Michaela Wolf and Alexandra Fukari, eds. Constructing a Sociology of Translation. Amsterdam-Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 93-108. Heilbron, Johan. 1999. Towards a Sociology of Translation: Book Translations as a Cultural World System. European Journal of Social Theory 2:4. 429-444. www.clepul.eu
An Overview of Bulgarian Literary Translations into Spanish and Catalan 89
Ivleva, Krassimira. 2011. Horizon et projet des traducteurs litteraires bulgares du russe et du francais dans la Bulgarie communiste (1944-1989). PhD diss., INALCO, Paris, France. Juez Galvez, Francisco Javier. 2001. Áúëãàðñêàòà ëèòåðàòóðà â èñïàíñêè ïðåâîä (ÕÕ âåê) [The Bulgarian literature in Spanish translation (20th Century)]. Paper presented at the international meeting on Bulgarian Studies, Soa, Bulgaria, September 2122. Kojouharova, Stefka. 2006. La recepci on b ulgara de Cervantes y El Quijote. Eslavistica Complutense 6. 75-97. Kojouharova, Stefka. 2008. Traduccion y recepcion de Valle-Inclan en Bulgaria. Anales de la literatura espa nola contemporanea, ALEC 33:3. 129-137. Kojouharova, Stefka. 2010a. Recepci on (por medio de la traduccion e interpretativa) de la literatura espa nola en Bulgaria. PhD Diss., University of National and World Economy, Soa, Bulgaria. Kojouharova, Stefka. 2010b. Ïðåâîäíà ðåöåïöèÿ íà Ôðåäåðèêî Ãàðñèÿ Ëîðêà â Áúëãàðèÿ 1944/48-1989 [The Reception of Frederico Garca Lorca in Bulgaria 1944/48-1989]. Ezik i literatura 63:1-2. 111-121. Kovatcheva, Diliana. 2003. La traduccion al espa nol de literatura b ulgara. Ricardo Mu noz Martn, ed. I AIETI. Actas del I Congreso Internacional de la Asociacion Iberica de Estudios de Traduccion e Interpretacion. Granada 12-14 de Febrero de 2003 1, Granada: AIETI, 2013. 579-587. Lafarga, Francisco and Luis Pegenaute, eds. 2004. Historia de la traduccion en Espa na. Salamanca: Ambos Mundos. Lafarga, Francisco and Luis Pegenaute, eds. 2009. Diccionario hist orico de la traduccion en Espa na. Madrid: Gredos. Laleva, Tania. 2003. La literatura espa nola en Bulgaria hasta los a nos 80 del s. XX. Retrospectiva general. Eslavistica Complutese 3. 33-55. Mcheva, Neva. 2011. Ñïîðàäè÷íî. Õàîòè÷íî. Ìàðãèíàëíî. Áúëãàðñêàòà ëèòåðàòóðà â ïðåâîä íà èñïàíñêè (1989-2010) [Sporadic. Chaotic. Marginal. Bulgarian literature translated in Spanish (1989-2010)]. Accessed April 08, 2012. http://www.npage.org/IMG/pdf/Prevod_i_prexod_NPF_Casestudy www.lusosoa.net
2_Spain.pdf. Moretti, Franco. 1999. Atlas of the European Novel, 1800-1900. London-New York: Verso. Moretti, Franco. 2006. The Novel Il Romanzo. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Moussakova, Svetla. 2007. Le miroir identitaire. Histoire de la construction culturelle de l'Europe. Transferts et politiques cultures en Bulgarie. Paris: Presses de la Sorbonne Nouvelle. Moussakova, Svetla. 2008. Le theatre symboliste francais et la critique bulgare: Un transfert culturel au tournant du siecle. Jean-Claude Yon, ed. Le theatre francais a l'etranger au XIXe siecle. Bruxelles: Edition Complexe. 283-298. Moussakova, Svetla. 2010. Transferts culturels franco-bulgares au XXe siecle. Robert Frank et al, eds. Les relations culturelles internationales au XXe siecle. De la diplomatie culturelle a l'acculturation. Bruxelles: P.I.E. Peter Lang. 519-543. Next Page Foundation. 2011. Ă?Ă°ĂĽĂ˘ĂŽĂ¤ĂĂ¨ ĂŤĂ¨Ă˛ĂĽĂ°Ă Ă˛ĂłĂ°ĂĂ¨ Ă§Ă ĂŁĂŤĂ Ă˘Ă¨Ăż ĂŽĂ˛ ĂĄĂşĂŤĂŁĂ Ă°ĂąĂŞĂ¨, Ă¨Ă§Ă¤Ă Ă¤ĂĽĂĂ¨ Ă˘ ĂŻĂĽĂ°Ă¨ĂŽĂ¤Ă 1989-2010 ĂĂ 39 ĂĽĂ§Ă¨ĂŞĂ . Ă Ă¨ĂĄĂŤĂ¨ĂŽĂŁĂ°Ă Ă´Ă¨Ăż ĂĂ Ă´ĂŽĂĂ¤Ă ĂśĂ¨Ăż `Ă‘ĂŤĂĽĂ¤Ă˘Ă ĂšĂ ĂąĂ˛Ă°Ă ĂĂ¨ĂśĂ ' [Literature titles translated from Bulgarian into 39 languages during 1989-2010. Bibliography of the Next Page Foundation]. Accessed April 08, 2012. http://www.npage.org/IMG/pdf/BiblioFINAL_updatedJune2011.pdf. Obolenskaya, Julia. 1993. La historia de las traducciones de la literatura rusa y los problemas de equivalencia. Marget Raders and Julia Sevilla, eds. III Encuentros Complutenses entorno a la traducci on. Madrid: Editorial Complutense. 169-182. Pie ta, Hanna. 2012. Patterns in (In)directness: An Exploratory Case Study in the External History of Portuguese Translations of Polish Literature (1855-2010). Target 24:2. 310-337. Popa, Ioana. 2006. Translation Channels. A Primer on Politicized Literary Transfer. Target 18:2. 205-228. Popa, Ioana. 2010. Traduire sous contraintes. Litterature et commu nisme (1947-1989). Paris: CNRS Editions. Presa Gonzalez, Fernando, ed. 2002. Espa na y el Mundo Eslavo: Relaciones culturales, literarias y ling usticas. Madrid: Gram.
An Overview of Bulgarian Literary Translations into Spanish and Catalan 91
Pym, Anthony. 1998. Method in Translation History. Manchester: St. Jerome. Rioja Barrocal, Marta. 2008. La traduccion ingles-espa nol de textos narrativos censurados (1962-1969). Leonor Perez Ruiz, Isabel Pizarro Sanchez and Elena Gonzalez-Cascos Jimenez, eds. Estudios de Metodologa de La Lengua Inglesa IV. Valladolid: Universidad De Valladolid, 2008. 243-55. Accessed July 22, 2012. http://www.represura.es/represura_6_marzo_2009_articulo5.html. Sapiro, Gisele, ed. 2008a. Translatio: Le marche de la traduction en France a l'heure de la mondialisation. Paris: CNRS editions. Sapiro, Gisele. 2008b. Normes de traduction et contraintes sociales. Anthony Pym, Miriam Shlesinger and Daniel Simeoni, eds. Beyond Descriptive Translation Studies. Investigations in Homage to Gideon Toury. Amsterdam-Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 199-208. Sapiro, Gisele. 2010. Les echanges litteraires entre Paris et New York. Paris: Centre europeen de sociologie et de science politique. Shurbanov, Alexander and Vladimir Trendalov. 2000. Ïðåâîäíà Påöåïöèÿ íà åâðîïåéñêèòå ëèòåðàòóðè â Áúëãàðèÿ â 8 òîìà. Òîì 1. Àíãëèéñêà ëèòåðàòóðà [Reception of the European Literatures in Bulgaria in 8 volumes. Volume 1. English literature]. Soa: Prof. Marin Drinov Academic Publishing House. Stavrev, Kiril et al, eds. 1992 . Èñïàíîåçè÷íàòà êíèãà â Áúëãàðèÿ 1882-1991. Áèáëèîãðàôñêè óêàçàòåë / El libro hispanico en Bulgaria 1882-1991. Gua bibliograca 1882 - 1991. Soa: SS. Cyril and Methodius National Library of Bulgaria. Stoyanov, Rumen. 1988. La literatura catalana a Bulgaria. Revista de Catalunya 23. 155-158. Stoyanov, Rumen. 1990. Rodoreda i Calders a la terra de Ciril i Metodi. Revista de Catalunya 41. 134-136. Stoyanov, Rumen. 1991. Bulgaria i Catalunya: mes encontres. Revista de Catalunya 52. 120-125.
Indirect Translations, Censorship and Non-translation: The Reception of Czech and Slovak Literature in 20th-century Portugal Jaroslav Spirk Charles University Jaroslav.Spirk@seznam.cz
Abstract The present paper discusses the role of ideology and censorship in the reception of Czech literature in 20th -century Portugal. While the Czechoslovak `communist' regime (1948-89) and the Portuguese `corporatist' despotism (1926-74) may be seen as one another's opposites in terms of political science, their methods in treating the potentially subversive element of translated literature were very much alike. More surprisingly, the overthrow of the two dictatorships, the Portuguese in 1974 and the Czechoslovak in 1989, did little to improve the standing of the source literature in the target polysystem. In 20th -century Portugal, literature originally written in Czech has been the victim of misrepresentation, `invisibilisation' and non-translation. The treatment of intercultural relations between two medium-sized lingua- and socio-cultures via translation appears both novel and illuminating in various aspects. Keywords Ideology, Censorship, Indirect translations, Non-translation, Medium-sized lingua- & socio-cultures, Portugal, Czechoslovakia.
1. Introduction In her pioneering and illuminative book on the English and French translations of Milan Kundera's work, Michelle Woods writes: Translation Studies has tended to focus on case studies of major world languages: English (in the anglocentric and ex-colonial world), French (in the francophone world), German, Spanish, Italian, Arabic, Chinese and, to some extent, Russian. Case studies such as that of Kundera suggest that there needs to be an analysis of translations from so-called `minority languages', and certainly one of the areas that has been ignored is ex-Eastern Europe: Central Europe and the Balkans, for instance. (Woods 2006: 185)
Research into two `medium-sized lingua- and socio-cultures' (to use a neutral and inoensive term) appears susceptible of yielding novel insights into the role of translation in their cultural interrelations. Studying Czech literature in 20th -century Portugal certainly conrms this hypothesis. The current research forms part of what has sometimes been referred to as the `Lisbon Group', a group of scholars studying inter alii the effects of censorship on translation in the Portuguese Estado Novo (Teresa Seruya, Jo ao Ferreira Duarte, Alexandra Assis Rosa, Maria Lin Moniz, epankova, Patricia Baubeta, etc.). More specifHanna Pie ta, Katerina St ically, comparisons with translations of Czech and Slovak literature in Spain (Blas and Jes us 2007), translations of Polish literature into European Portuguese (Pie ta 2010) and, more generally, translations of literature in other non-democratic polysystems (Rundle and Sturge 2010 or Thomson-Wohlgemuth 2009) provide for a proper contextualisation of this paper.
2. Preliminary norm: (in)directness of translation Since the mid-20th -century, we have taken it for granted that translations are made from the originals. In an attempt to escape the ageold dichotomy, we have renamed these `the source text' and `the target text'. However, when dealing with indirect translations, the source text www.clepul.eu
The Reception of Czech and Slovak Literature in 20th -century Portugal
is not the original, and the term `target text' depends on the eye of the beholder (the original becomes translation 1 = mediating text, i.e. the source text for translation 2 , a chain which can conceivably go on and on). Improper and undesirable as this method may seem to us, oering one might argue something hardly better than Chinese whispers or predigested food, this was the principal avenue whereby Czech literature entered the Portuguese literary polysystem throughout the twentieth century. The exceptions were few and far apart. To illustrate, let us compare three tables. Only 38 books originally written in Czech or Slovak were translated into European Portuguese in 20th -century Portugal (see Table 1): 25 of them were novels, 7 non-ction, and only 2 had originally been written in Slovak (two novels by Ladislav M nacko). Regarding ction, by far the most translated Czech author into Portuguese was Milan Kundera (8 novels), followed by Bohumil Hrabal (4 novels) and Karel Josef Benes (3 novels). If non-ction were included, Vaclav Havel (4 books) would rank third. This quartet is followed by Karel Capek, Jaroslav Hasek and Egon Hostovsk y, each of whom had two books translated. Of all 38 books, only 5 were translated directly from their respective originals and in all ve cases, the translators were Czech, not Portuguese (see Table 2). The remaining 33 books (87 %) were translated via mediating languages, with French representing the absolute majority
Table 1. Books originally written in Czech or Slovak and translated into European Portuguese in 20th -century Portugal, correlated with their genre. Genre Novels Stories Plays Essays Non-ction Total
Czech 25 1 2 1 7 36
Total 27 1 2 1 7 38
Table 2. Source-text languages for the Portuguese translations of books originally written in Czech or Slovak. Source Language Czech ction Czech non-ction Slovak (ction) Total
FR 18 2 1 21
2 1 3
Unknown 3 2
Total 29 7 2 38
Key: CZ = Czech, FR = French, EN = English, DE = German, ES = Spanish.
(18 out of the 29 books of Czech ction, i.e. 62 %; 20 from all 36 books originally written in Czech, i.e. 55.5 %). In other words, French was incontestably the primary mediating language when translating Czech literature into European Portuguese in the 20th century. Translations of books of ction originally written in Czech begin in 1943 and end in 1992 (sic ). Two books were translated in the 1940s, two in the 1950s, seven in the 1960s (including Jorge (Frantisek) Listopad's self-translation of his book of essays), seven in the 1980s (mainly the novels by Milan Kundera) and nine in the 1990s (i.e. from 1990 to 1992), as can be seen in Table 3. The events of the Prague Spring and its suppression by the armies of the Warsaw Pact (1968-69) were followed by the Portuguese not only in the form of translations per se, but in a rather dierent way as well. It is precisely to reveal such correlations that non-ction was included in this research. Following Salazar's death in 1968, the Portuguese dictatorship went through a brief period of relaxation; but it survived the demise of its creator, and showed no signs of relinquishing power. Yet even in such an ambience, the Portuguese wrote, compiled and translated texts concerning the Czechoslovak attempt to bring about `socialism with a human face,' a highly subversive undertaking in a far-right autocracy.
The Reception of Czech and Slovak Literature in 20th -century Portugal
Table 3. Years of publication of Czech and Slovak books of ction in Portuguese translation, correlated with their place of publication. Years 1943 1947 1953 1960 1961 1962 1965 1968 1969 1971 1979 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 Total
CZ in LX 1 1 2 1 2 2 1
CZ in OP
SK in LX
1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 5 1 24
1 1 2 5
Key: CZ = Czech, SK = Slovak, LX = Lisbon, OP = Oporto.
Checoslovaquia na Hora da Democratizacao [Czechoslovakia at the Time of Democratisation] (1968) and Dossier Checoslov aquia (O Que Nos Queremos) [The Czechoslovakia File (What We Want)] (1968), two compilations of various texts, as well as Amort and Jedlicka's O Espi ao A-54 [Spy A-54] (1968) and Pavel Tigrid's A Primavera de Praga [The Prague Spring] (1969), two translations from French, all testify to the fact that the Prague Spring did not pass unnoticed in Portugal. A decade www.lusosoa.net
later, Cavalcanti's A Tentativa Checa H a Dez Anos. . . [The Czech Attempt Ten Years Ago] (1979) conrms that it resonated rather strongly with the Portuguese public. Moreover, two of Ladislav M nacko's 's novels, O Sabor do Poder [The Taste of Power] and A Setima Noite [The Seventh Night], the only books originally written in Slovak and translated into European Portuguese throughout the course of the entire 20th century, appeared in 1968 and 1969, respectively only one year after their publication in the original Slovak. Such speed is highly untypical of our corpus and very signicant. It can therefore be concluded that Slovak literature was received most warmly in Portugal in the wake of the Prague Spring, a Czechoslovak, i.e. source -culture, event. Translation from Czech or Slovak did not thrive in the turbulent years of 1974-76 in Portugal, following the Carnation Revolution. The only exception was the Portuguese translation of Julius Fuck's Notes from the Gallows [Reportagem sob a Forca ] (1975), a key book of the Czechoslovak communist propaganda. The Portuguese translation was clearly a fruit of its time, characterised by a strong swing to the political left. This is surprising. After almost 5 decades of a far-right dictatorship, Portugal wavered between the temptations of the Central and East European communisms and the membership in the then European Communities. From 1974 to 1976, Portuguese leaders were not in unison regarding the future of their fatherland. In these years, due to increased interest in anything leftist, much more could have been (expected to be) translated from Czech literature, which at the time was still on the other side of the Iron Curtain. However, the Carnation Revolution, a target-culture event, eected little or no change in the reception of Czech literature in Portugal. Instead, it was the source culture which took the initiative now. The Czechoslovak regime issued the order that many existing booklets eulogising the communist `order of things' be translated into Portuguese. It was imperative to strike while the iron was hot. After all, this was a time when the Portuguese empire, straddling all inhabited continents, was falling apart, seemingly leaving others to pick up the crumbs. And
The Reception of Czech and Slovak Literature in 20th -century Portugal
Czechoslovak leaders by no means intended to miss the spoils being divided. Between 1978 and 1988, the Czechoslovak communist regime, i.e. the controlling power of the source culture, produced scores of translations of agitprop brochures into Portuguese from Lico es da Evolucao da Crise no Partido e na Sociedade Depois do 13.o Congresso do Partido Comunista da Checoslovaquia [Lessons from the Evolution of the Crisis in the Party and Society after the 13th Congress of the Communist Party of Czechoslovakia] in 1978 to CAME: Um novo Tipo de Relac oes Economicas Internacionais [Comecon: a New Kind of International Economic Relations] in 1988. Most of these booklets appeared in Orbis, a Prague publishing house. However, these translations, initiated by the source culture and destined quite clearly for Portugal and its (former) colonies, never arrived there. They therefore never became `facts of the target culture' (Toury 1995: 29) nor did they, obviously, produce any changes in it (Toury 1995: 27). Even at rst sight, 1990 was `the year of Czech literature in Portugal', with 6 books translated into European Portuguese and published in Portugal in that year. None of the other years ever saw more than two translations. Needless to say, the date is no accident. This surge of interest came immediately after the Velvet Revolution, which had been intently followed by the Portuguese media and public. 6 books of ction, including two novels by M. Kundera, were accompanied by two volumes of essays by Vaclav Havel. The total number is thus 8 books written originally and entirely in Czech, translated into European Portuguese and published in Portugal in the year 1990. Despite, or perhaps precisely because of, the fact that the fall of communism and the related events of 1989-90 swept through several countries in Central and Eastern Europe, it was at that time that Czech literature was received most warmly in Portugal. Any attempts to account for this state of aairs by saying there were two mutually inimical authoritarian regimes in Portugal and Czechoslovakia, situated at least in terms of political science on the opposite extremes of the political spectrum, will fail. The overthrow of the Porwww.lusosoa.net
tuguese far-right dictatorship in the peaceful Carnation Revolution in 1974 as well as the toppling of the Czechoslovak far-left dictatorship in the bloodless Velvet Revolution in 1989 brought about no long-lasting improvement. After a brief spell of better fortune, when it seemed to have a new lease of life, Czech literature went on languishing in the peripheral neverland. The split of Czechoslovakia into two sovereign countries in 1993 prompted no reaction in Portugal as regards translation (despite new and increased diplomatic encounters at various levels Vaclav Havel's house in Portugal, Mario Soares' visits to Prague etc.). In other words, the Portuguese cultural and literary polysystem felt little need to ll any void with respect to Czech or Slovak literature. The word `void' or `gap' even seems improper to capture the intricacies of the literary relations between the two cultures by dint of translation. It was primarily due to political events in the source culture (cf. Toury 1995: 27) that a `void' came into existence, or at least came to be felt as such. Target-culture events were of secondary import.
3. The Good Soldier Svejk The Czech novel which received most acclaim in Portugal, The Good Soldier Svejk (O Valente Soldado Chveik, translated in 1961 by Alexandre Cabral and reissued in 1971 and 1988), had a very interesting history of reception itself. Svejk took a long and winding road to acceptance before coming to epitomise Czech literature as such and its Czech reception was substantially inuenced by the German translation. The novel appeared in four parts published between 1920 and 1923 in the Prague publishing house Adolf Synek. Jaroslav Hasek (1883-1923), Svejk's author, died suddenly and prematurely in January 1923, never nishing (the fourth part of) the novel. Max Brod (1884-1968), who published Franz Kafka's works after his death disregarding Kafka's last will, made a German translation of parts of the rst chapter of The Good Soldier Svejk , which appeared in Prager Tagblatt, a Prague Germanlanguage daily, on 5 January 1923. It was such a success both among the German-speaking inhabitants of Bohemia and in Germany itself that Adolf Synek, the Czech pubwww.clepul.eu
The Reception of Czech and Slovak Literature in 20th -century Portugal 101
lisher, soon started looking for a suitable translator of Hasek's novel into German. Given the initial misgivings of Czech literary critics, the search was protracted until Synek found a Prague German-language translator who was willing to take up the challenge: Grete Reiner-Straschnow (1892-1944). The German translation of Svejk was of fundamental importance not only because it became the source text for the rst translation into Spanish by Alfosina Janes (as late as 1980), but primarily because it had a considerable impact on the reception of the novel in Czechoslovakia, as Hartmann reminds us: Grete Reiner's translation introduced Svejk to German-speaking audiences and even inuenced the perception of the novel in Czech culture, which was then forced to react to the success of Svejk abroad (Hartmann 2009: 192). In other words, the translation (and its success) inuenced the reception of the original (and its canonisation). Alongside the aforementioned `agitprop brochures', that is yet another instance of a cultural fact which disproves Toury's assumption that translation is as good as initiated by the target culture (Toury 1995: 27). The sheer number of Czech names among the translators of Czech literature into foreign languages (by no means a rarity among `small' and medium-sized lingua- and socio-cultures) attests to the tendency of such cultures to seize the initiative and translate their own literature into other languages instead of waiting to be discovered one day. As regards the Portuguese translation of Svejk, the following are the principal results of the micro-textual comparative analysis of the Czech original, the French mediating text and the Portuguese target text (cf. Spirk 2011: 247-280): (a) First and foremost, the Portuguese version of the novel is the translation of only Part I (out of four parts in total), distorting the target reader's image of the novel already by presenting him/her with an amputated, mutilated text. (b) The Portuguese translation of the novel was made from the French translation by Jindrich (Henry) Horejs (1886-1941), a Czech author known for his proletarian poetry and a translator from and www.lusosoa.net
epankova's estimation (St epankova 2009: 53-57), into French. In St the choice of a Czech author to translate the novel into French had less to do with the stylistic challenges of the novel than the political views shared by Horejs and L'Humanite, the journal, aliated with the French Communist Party (PCF), which serialised Hasek's novel from 1931 on. epankova (2009: 9, 52-57) reminds us that the French Moreover, St reception of Svejk was strongly inuenced by the success of the German translation and the theatrical adaptations of Svejk in Ger many (cf. Hartmann 2009: 158-177). Thus, the reception of Svejk in France was, or at least began as, a second-hand reception via the German culture. The Portuguese translation, made through the mediation of the French translation, was hence a third-hand reception not a rare occurrence in Salazarist Portugal.
(c) The actual text of the three editions of Cabral's translation of Hasek's novel, published in 1961, 1971 and 1988 is identical in all three cases. It is the paratexts that dier in each edition. There is only one essential dierence between the rst publication by Portugalia and the second and third editions by Europa-America : Svejk's name was changed from the Gallicised Chvek to the `Por epankova 2009: 67-68). tuguese' Chveik (St (d) The transposition in 1961 of a book written in a country behind the Iron Curtain into the Portuguese polysystem was a political epankova act on the part of Alexandre Cabral, the translator (cf. St 2009: 45-47; Spirk 2011: 259). (e) Clearly aware of the novel's `subversive provenance', the publishers attempted to avoid a ban of the book by the censors, which was reected in the paratexts. The peritexts on the book cover suppressed allusions to the French culture and played down the novel's anti-militarism, relegating it to a `far-away country' and a distant past.
O Valente Soldado Chveik was never a success in Portugal. In her epankova (2009: 109-116) reiterates that the novel never conclusion, St www.clepul.eu
The Reception of Czech and Slovak Literature in 20th -century Portugal 103
elicited any interest among Portuguese critics, in the performing arts or in any other area of culture. It was classied as a classical novel about the First World War, but hardly as a really humorous story transcending the age in which it was written. The publishers' attempt to avoid censorship led to a presentation of the novel that located it in a `universe of discourse' far away from its intended Portuguese readers, both spatially and temporally.
4. Censorship and non-translation Apart from the aforementioned translations, books originally written in Czech or Slovak and/or books written by Czech or Slovak authors in other languages arrived in Portugal, but were hindered from being translated into Portuguese by the institutionalised censorship. To illustrate again, let us compare Table 3 and Table 4. The rst book concerning Czechoslovakia was apprehended and banned by the Portuguese authorities in 1942, amid the oppressive atmosphere of the Second World War, and the last in 1971, three years before the Carnation Revolution. Thus, for over 30 years from 1942 to 1973, the Portuguese censorship boards in Lisbon and Oporto censored at least 33 books that is the number of books for which censorship les could be located in the Torre do Tombo, the National Archives in Lisbon. While it is likely, however, that more books translated (indirectly) from Czech, Slovak or otherwise concerning Czechoslovakia were censored in Portugal (the censorship les might have got lost), the missing items are likely to be very few (cf. Seruya 2010: 131). Comparing Table 3 and Table 4, we can see that the rst book by an author of Czech origin had been censored (1942) before the rst book by a Czech author was translated (1943). In fact, Jan Hus (1370-1415), the Church reformer burnt at the stake as a heretic by the Council of Constance in 1415, was, in all likelihood, the rst Czech to have been censored in Portugal, as early as 1450 (cf. Rodrigues 1980: 93). Non-translation as a result of institutionalised censorship thus preceded the translation of Czech literature in Portugal.
Following the Czechoslovak communist coup d'etat of February 1948, the Portuguese censors seem to have become more systematic in weeding out books written by Czech and Slovak authors. 1951 saw the highest number of books concerning Czechoslovakia banned by the Portuguese censors, when the Oporto censorship board banned 5 out of 6 books (83.33 %). 1951 is thus the `negative counterpart' to 1990, the `year of Czech literature in Portugal'. Other bad years for the reception of Czechoslovakia-related books in Portugal were 1943 (3 out of 4 banned), 1953 and 1957 (3 out of 3 banned in each year). The most lenient years, on the other hand, were
Table 4. Books banned and authorised by the censorship boards in Lisbon and Oporto, by year. Year 1942 1943 1950 1951 1952 1953 1955 1957 1960 1962 1966 1967 1969 1971 1973 Total
B in LX 1 3 1 1 3 1 3 1 1 2
A in LX
B in OP
A in OP
1 2 1 2 9
Key: A = authorised, B = banned, LX = Lisbon, OP = Oporto.
The Reception of Czech and Slovak Literature in 20th -century Portugal 105
1960 (2 out of 3 books authorised), 1969 and 1973 (2 out of 2 authorised in each year). Of the 33 books for which the censorship les could be identied, only 12 were authorised; the rest (63.63 %) were banned. When a book concerning Czechoslovakia arrived at the censorship board in Oporto, it had a 14.29 % chance of being authorised (1 out of 7 books). In Lisbon, the chances were markedly higher: 34.62 % (9 out of 26 books). Regarding the books' `provenance', i.e. the institutions which submitted the books to the censorship boards, the statistics are as follows: the `political police' 23 books; the post oce (C.T.T.) 3 books;
the publisher 1 book (The Good Soldier Svejk . 1971. MemMartins: Europa-America, sic ); no data 6 books. Of the 33 books written by Czech or Slovak authors and censored in 20th -century Portugal, only four were originals in all four cases written in English (see Table 5). The rest (29) arrived in Portugal already as translations (from Czech or Slovak), liable to become the mediating texts for potential Portuguese indirect (second-hand) translations. Those banned would remain in the murky underworld of non-translation: existent (say, in a Portuguese private library), yet not part of the Portuguese literary polysystem. Since the rst four books were originally written in English (by Czech and Slovak authors), the rst translation dates from 1950 and is none other than The Good Soldier Svejk in German (banned). The last translation of ction is Svejk again, this time (1971) translated into Portuguese and authorised to circulate in Portugal in the Portuguese translation of Alexandre Cabral. Svejk is followed by only two more propagandistic publications, assessed together and authorised to circulate in 1973. Of those 33 books, most concern political propaganda or non-ction, with only 8 (24.24 %) constituting ction (6 novels, 1 collection of poems, 1 collection of stories). Fiction thus seems to have been less exposed www.lusosoa.net
Table 5. Representation of source languages of books of Czech literature censored in Portugal in proportion to originals/translations (of which ction) and provenance. Languages English Portuguese Spanish French Italian German No data Total
Originals Translations ction 4 4 2 7 3 6 5 1 4 1 1 1 2 4 29 8
from Prague 4 5 2 3 2 16
from elsewhere 4 7 1 3 1 1 17
to the vicissitudes of censorship than non-ction and more obviously propaganda. The languages represented, correlated with the provenance of the books, are as follows: 1. English: 8 books; 4 translations; the originals are from London, the translations are all from Prague; 2. Portuguese: 7 books; 7translations; 4 from Lisbon, 1 from Mem Martins (near Sintra, district of Great Lisbon), 1 from Oporto, and 1 from Belo Horizonte (Brazil); 3. Spanish: 6 books; 6 translations; 5 from Prague, 1 from Buenos Aires (Argentina); 4. French: 5 books; 5 translations; 3 from Paris, 2 from Prague; 5. Italian: 4 books; 4 translations; 3 from Prague, 1 from Rome; 6. German: 1 book; 1 translation; 1 from Graz (Austria); 7. No data: 2 books; 2 translations; 2 from Prague.
The Reception of Czech and Slovak Literature in 20th -century Portugal 107
English leads in the number of titles (8), but is on a par with Italian as regards translations (4). As far as translations are concerned, Spanish (6) is closely followed by French (5). Once submitted to the Portuguese censorship board, the book had the highest chances of being authorised if it had already been translated into Portuguese, both in general (5 out of 7 books, i.e. 71.43 %) and especially as regards ction (3 out of 3). Regarding the books' provenance, it is perhaps surprising to note that as many as 16 books (48.48 %) found their way to Portugal (6 of them to Oporto) from Prague, followed by London (5) and Paris (4). This testies to the actual semi-permeability of the (seemingly impenetrable) Iron Curtain. It is equally interesting to realise that none of the Spanish translations was actually made in Spain, none of the books in English arrived from the United States of America, and the only book in German (The Good Soldier Svejk ) came from Austria. Evaluating censorial activities throughout the Estado Novo, Seruya arrives at a gure of about 3550 titles banned (. . . ) out of a total of 10,011 reports issued by the Censoring Commission (Seruya 2010: 139-140). If these data are correct and complete, Czech literature and issues concerning Czechoslovakia, taken together, appear to have been particularly aected by the Portuguese censorship. While the overall average of authorised books was 64.54 %, only 36.36 % of books relating to Czechoslovakia were allowed to circulate in Portugal, although the percentage is rather friendlier (50 %) as regards ction. To conclude, it should be noted that the corpus of censorship les regarding Czechoslovakia exhibits no instance of a book `authorised with cuts'. Books coming from or concerning Czechoslovakia were clearly evaluated as either too pernicious (in most cases) or completely harmless (in 10 instances out of 33, i.e. 30.30 %). This plethora of statistics is not autotelic. Despite the relatively small size of our corpus, the statistical data beg to be compared with the results of the other researchers of the Lisbon Group, and possibly with the data of other translation scholars investigating the impact of censorship upon translations.
5. Conclusion In his ground-breaking paper, Joao Ferreira Duarte (2000) discusses seven categories of non-translation: 1. Omission, or `zero replacement' (cf. Toury 1995: 82), i.e. at the level of individual words; 2. Repetition, or `zero translation', i.e. borrowings and loanwords `carried over unchanged' into the target text; 3. Language closeness, say between Portuguese and Spanish, or Czech and Slovak; 4. Bilingualism, e.g. in 19th - and early 20th -century Prague between German and Czech, or in Luxembourg today between German and French; 5. Cultural distance, i.e. a situation in which a highly canonical text or series of texts fail, over a more or less lengthy period of time, to be admitted into some target system for no other reason than cultural remoteness, which may stem from hostility or indierence and may lead to a dearth of experts able to tackle the translation (Duarte 2000: 98); 6. Institutionalised censorship: there is no shortage of historical evidence that points to the fact that non-translation is one of the many cultural consequences of the political institution of censorship, which, as we all know, is set up to prevent circulation of material that is felt to threaten ocial ideology. (Duarte 2000: 98); 7. Ideological embargo, wherein non-translation results from the clash of a community's system of values and some shattering political event (Duarte 2000: 98). It is debatable to which category (or categories) Luso-Czech relations may be ascribed. At rst, historically, cultural distance is certain to have www.clepul.eu
The Reception of Czech and Slovak Literature in 20th -century Portugal 109
been the decisive factor. The Portuguese have long looked across the Atlantic Ocean, away from Europe, becoming as a consequence a major colonising power. The Czechs were preoccupied with their own Central European issues, whether religious (the Hussite wars between the 1390s and the 1470s, and their repercussions up to the Battle of White Mountain in 1620 and beyond), or political (implied in their geographical position between the German-speaking peoples and the Russians). Despite an epoch-making meeting between Czech diplomats dispatched by the Bohemian Hussite king George of Kunstat and Podebrady and the Portuguese king Afonso V, called `the African', in 1466 (cf. Klma 2007: 498-499), contacts between the two cultures were few and far between. In the 20th century, however, the situation changed, supplanting Duarte's fth category by the sixth. By adopting rst fascist and later corporatist models, Portugal ideologically opposed Czechoslovakia rst as a democratic and subsequently as a communist country, with only very brief spells in between. Previous cultural distance was thus compounded by institutionalised censorship in Portugal, resulting in agrant non-translation. In his case study, Duarte repeatedly emphasises the need to broaden our perspective beyond the texts if we are to plausibly account for various instances of non-translation: if one looks for reasons why this happened, one will surely not nd them in the target texts and their supposed delity (Duarte 2000: 100-101). In Encounter, his latest volume of essays, Kundera writes: The Czech nation was born (several dierent times born) not because of its military conquests but because of its literature. And I don't mean literature as a political weapon. I mean literature as literature (Kundera 2010: 121). It remains to be hoped that this also applies to its translation into Portuguese. Note: For the complete list of books translated from Czech and Slovak into European Portuguese in 20th -century Portugal as well as the Portuguese censorship les concerning books written by Czech and Slo vak authors or otherwise concerning Czechoslovakia, see Spirk (2011). www.lusosoa.net
References Blas, Alejandro Hermida de and Patricia Gonzalo de Jes us. 2007. Translations of Czech and Slovak Literature in Spain: An Approach. Beata E. Cieszy nska, ed. Iberian and Slavonic Cultures: Contact and comparison. Lisbon: CompaRes. Accessed February 2, 2014. 185-204. http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.127.3894&r ep=rep1&type=pdf. Duarte, Joao Ferreira. 2000. The Politics of Non-Translation: A Case Study in Anglo-Portuguese Relations. TTR: Traduction, Terminologie, Redaction 13:1. 95-112. Accessed February 2, 2014. http://www.erudit.org/revue/ttr/2000/v13/n1/037395ar.pdf. Hartmann, Zdenek. 2009. Hask uv Svejk v Nemcine [Hasek's Svejk in German]. MA thesis, Charles University. Hasek, Jaroslav. 1971. O valente Soldado Chveik. Traducao de Alexandre Cabral. Lisboa: Europa-America. Hasek, Jaroslav. 2000. The Good Soldier Svejk . Translated by Cecil Parrott. London: Penguin Books. Hasek, Jaroslav. 2004. Osudy dobreho voj aka Svejka za svetove valky [The Fortunes of the Good Soldier Svejk in the World War]. Praha: KMa. Hasek, Jaroslav. 2007. Le brave Soldat Chvek. Translated by Henry Horejsi [Jindrich Horejs]. Paris: Gallimard. Hasek, Jaroslav. 2008. Die Abenteuer des braven Soldaten Schwejk. Translated by Grete Reiner. Berlin, Weimar: Aufbau. Klma, Jan. 2007. Dejiny Portugalska [History of Portugal]. Praha: Lidove noviny. Kundera, Milan. 2010. Encounter. Translated by Linda Asher. London: Faber and Faber. Pie ta, Hanna. 2010. Portuguese Translations of Polish Literature Published in Book Form: Some Methodological Issues. Omid Azadibougar, ed. Translation Eects. Selected Papers of the CETRA Research
The Reception of Czech and Slovak Literature in 20th -century Portugal 111
Seminar in Translation Studies 2009. Accessed February 2, 2014. http://www.arts.kuleuven.be/cetra/papers/les/hanna-pieta-portugue se-translations-of-polish.pdf. Rodrigues, Graca Almeida. 1980. Breve Hist oria da Censura Literaria em Portugal [Brief History of the Translation of Literature in Portugal]. Lisboa: Instituto de Cultura e Lngua Portuguesa. Accessed February 2, 2014. http://cvc.instituto-camoes.pt/bdc/eliterarios/054/bb054.pdf. Rundle, Christopher and Kate Sturge, eds. 2010. Translation under Fascism. Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan. Seruya, Teresa. 2010. Translation in Portugal during the Estado Novo Regime. Christopher Rundle and Kate Sturge, eds. Translation under Fascism. Hampshire, UK: Palgrave Macmillan. 117-144. Spirk, Jaroslav. 2008. Translation and Censorship in Communist Czechoslovakia. Teresa Seruya, Maria Lin Moniz, eds. Translation and Censorship from the 18th Century to the Present Day. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars. 215-228. Spirk, Jaroslav. 2009. Literatura checa traduzida para portugues [Czech Literature Translated into Portuguese]. Teresa Seruya, Maria Lin Moniz, Alexandra Assis Rosa, eds. Traduzir em Portugal Durante o Estado Novo: V Coloquio de Estudos de Traducao em Portugal. Lisboa: Universidade Catolica Editora. 343-357. Spirk, Jaroslav. 2011. Ideology, Censorship, Indirect Translations and Non-Translation: Czech literature in 20th-century Portugal. Ph.D. thesis, Charles University. epankova, Katerina. 2009. Rir em portugues: Estudo comparativo St das traducoes de Osudy Dobreho Vojaka Svejka za Svetove Valky de Jaroslav Hasek [Laughing in Portuguese: Comparative Study of the Translations of Osudy Dobreho Voj aka Svejka za Svetove Valky by Jaroslav Hasek]. MA thesis, University of Lisbon. Thomson-Wohlgemuth, Gaby. 2009. Translation under State Control: Books for Young People in the German Democratic Republic. London, New York: Routledge. Toury, Gideon. 1995. Descriptive Transation Studies and beyond. Amsterdam-Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Woods, Michelle. 2006. Translating Milan Kundera. Clevedon, Philadelphia, Toronto: Multilingual Matters.
Henryk Sienkiewicz, el autor polaco mas publicado y peor traducido en Espa na, y su impacto en la prensa espa nola de principios del siglo XX Bo zena Zaboklicka Universitat de Barcelona email@example.com
Abstract Henryk Sienkiewicz is the most frequently translated and published Polish author in Spain. The appearance of his work in Spain met with tremendous response in intellectual circles not only for its surprising success, but also because it formed part of the discussion on the literary model of his time. But the comparison of his works with their translations into Spanish shows that in their majority they are not translations but rather extracts that do not transmit the excellency of style but only the contents of his works. The present article studies the reasons of Sienkiewicz's success in Spain by analysing his reception in the Spanish press. Keywords Sienkiewicz, Polish literature, Translation, Reception in Spain.
Bo zena Zaboklicka
Henryk Sienkiewicz es el escritor polaco mas traducido y publicado en Espa na de todos los tiempos, y tambien es el autor cuya obra inuyo de manera mas determinante en la imagen de Polonia formada por muchos a nos en el imaginario colectivo de los espa noles. Como su obra siempre estuvo acompa nada de no pocas controversias tanto en su pas de origen como en todos aquellos donde se iba publicando, intentaremos descubrir a traves del analisis de la prensa de la epoca las claves de su popularidad entre el p ublico espa nol. El exito de Sienkiewicz en Espa na comienza en 1900 con la publicacion de la novela Quo Vadis? 1 , el mismo a no en que se publico en Francia, Italia, Inglaterra y Alemania. Solo hemos encontrado traducciones a lengua inglesa realizadas con anterioridad a 1900; se trata de ediciones americanas e inglesas publicadas en 1896 (a no de la publicacion del original polaco), 1897, 1898 y 1899. Queda, pues, por resolver el enigma sobre el camino por el cual Quo Vadis? llego a Espa na, aunque la mayora de las crticas de la epoca que hemos podido consultar apuntan a que la fama de Sienkiewicz llego desde Pars, cosa, por otra parte, habitual en aquel tiempo. Es lo que se desprende de una de las primeras crticas aparecidas en Espa na de la novela del autor polaco, salida de la pluma de Emilia Pardo Bazan, introductora del naturalismo en Espa na y, por tanto, ideologica y esteticamente muy alejada de la obra historica sienkiewiczeana. Pardo Bazan le dedico un estudio publicado en el semanario La Ilustraci on Artstica en octubre de 1900, que comienza as: Voy a hablar de un libro que r apidamente se ha puesto de moda; que es el m as visible en los escaparates de Pars, con su blanca cubierta y las letras negras y grandes de su breve ttulo, elegido con habilidad suma. Un libro que, en estos tiempos de indiferencia, en que se publican muchos buenos libros y apenas habla de ellos nadie, ha conseguido romper la costra de hielo; del cual habla Valera con envidia dulce y noble; que se vende como pan bendito, y del cual renuevan diariamente los libreros la provisi on dos o tres 1
Sienkiewicz es uno de los pocos casos de premios Nobel de literatura ex oticos que en el momento en que se le concede el galard on (en 1905) ya gozan de fama mundial.
veces. Me reero a la novela de la epoca neroniana Quo Vadis?, de Sienkiewicz (Pardo Baz an 1900: 634).
En el fragmento citado, Emilia Pardo Bazan hace mencion del exito de la novela en Pars, porque es donde ella compro un ejemplar para, como dice, entretener el tedio del viaje (Pardo Bazan 1900: 634). Pero resulto que el libro que en principio u nicamente tena que servir de entretenimiento en las largas horas pasadas en el tren desperto su interes no solo por las aventuras, las intrigas y los eventos que cuenta, sino por el arte en que est a escrito: era legtimo interes de lector que aprecia, en primer termino, el sabor literario de una obra (Pardo Baz an 1900: 634). El exito de ventas de la obra del autor polaco dej o estupefactos a los escritores espa noles, tanto mas cuanto que hasta entonces la literatura polaca haba sido una gran ausente en Espa na2 , y que las nociones que podan tener los espa noles de Polonia, en aquel entonces inexistente como Estado, eran mas que escasas. Un mes antes de la aparici on del artculo de Pardo Bazan, otro escritor importante de la epoca, Juan Valera, opinaba sobre Quo Vadis? en un artculo titulado Sobre la duracion del habla castellana con motivo de algunas frases del Sr. Cuervo 3 (Valera 1900). Es justamente a esta opinion a la que se reere Emilia Pardo Bazan en el fragmento citado. Valera, una celebridad internacional y escritor de reconocida autoridad en la crtica literaria, dice entre otras cosas: No me atormenta la mala pasi on de la envidia, pero, sin envidiar, reconozco y deploro que exito tan grande de librera como va teniendo en nuestra naci on la novela Quo Vadis? del autor polaco Sienkiewicz, no le ha tenido ning un novelista espa nol (. . . ). 2
Antes de 1900 se publican traducciones de alguna obra aislada como la epopeya en verso del poeta romantico Adam Mickiewicz, Pan Tadeusz, publicada en Madrid en 1885 por la Imprenta de Jose Rojas, traducida del frances en prosa por Le on Medina y editada con el ttulo Tadeo Soplica o el Ultimo Proceso en Lituania: Narraci on historica. 3 El artculo de Juan Valera se public o en la revista El Imparcial del 24.09.1900. La cita proviene de la edici on electr onica del libro de Valera El Superhombre y Otras Novedades. Artculos crticos sobre producciones literarias de nes del s. XIX y principios del XX. 1903. Madrid: Librera de Fernando Fe.
Bo zena Zaboklicka
Valera admira en Sienkiewicz su gran conocimiento de la literatura clasica de Grecia y de Roma y tambien su capacidad e ingenio para aunar una historia de poca importancia como es la historia de amor de los protagonistas ccionales con la historia en may uscula. Y nalmente se congratula de que con Sienkiewicz vuelva la aci on a la novela historica. Sobre esta u ltima opinion no hubo consenso entre los distintos crticos de la obra del polaco. Por ejemplo, La Revista Blanca, una de las principales publicaciones teoricas del movimiento libertario y anarquista espa nol (1900-1936), publicaba en agosto de 1900 la Cronica artstica rmada por Pedro Corominas4 en que su autor, con ocasi on del estreno en Barcelona de un espectaculo teatral basado en Quo Vadis?, arremeta no solo contra Sienkiewicz, sino que apuntaba con su crtica furibunda a todos aquellos autores que se haban aventurada en el terreno de la novela historica, entre ellos Flaubert. Deca Corominas: En el fondo de todo esto hay una miseria intelectual que abruma. El alma fecunda y fuerte encuentra en todas las cosas la intrusa belleza que la vida puso hasta en los objetos m as peque nos; para el ojo penetrante del artista las imagenes de la realidad pasan envueltas en otantes t unicas de inefables misterios. Pero el seudoescritor, el tendero abortado, busca en vano las extravagancias de la vida en la realidad actual, y, al no encontrarlas, la desprecia, y se solaza en la descripci on pintoresca de las edades m as antiguas para adornarlas con las invenciones miserables de su espritu (Corominas 1900: 84)5 . 4
Pedro Corominas, en catal an Pere Coromines, (1870-1939), escritor, poltico y economista vinculado con el anarquismo. 5 En este punto hay que hacer hincapie en que la opini on de Corominas no fue en absoluto la opini on representada por su revista, en la que en otra ocasi on apareci o un texto sobre Sienkiewicz harto elogioso. Se trata del artculo Manifestaciones artsticas y literarias (de todo el mundo) rmado por Armando Guerra (pseud onimo bajo el cual se esconda Jose Estvalis (1886-1939), director de cine, escritor y periodista espa nol de ideologa anarquista) y publicado por La Revista Blanca el 15 de enero de 1901. Aunque al nal de su texto, Armando Guerra expresa sus dudas respecto a la duraci on de la fama de Sienkiewicz, tambien es verdad que aconseja la lectura de sus obras, que valora mucho mas que la literatura francesa del momento. El artculo acaba con la siguiente frase: Pero al cabo, y dure m as o menos, resulta preferible que los desocupados lean obras de Sienkiewicz por alg un tiempo, distrayendose algo y apartando la imaginaci on de las monstruosidades que vomita
Aunque utilizase un estilo mas ecuanime y palabras mas mesuradas, Emilia Pardo Bazan tampoco vea con buenos ojos la vuelta al escenario literario espa nol de la novela historica, hecho que no debe extra narnos, tratandose de la introductora y mayor representante del naturalismo en Espa na. Sienkiewicz tambien haba recibido crticas parecidas de los escritores y partidarios de la literatura realista polacos. No obstante, la opinion de la escritora gallega sobre la obra de Sienkiewicz fue evolucionando. En su primer artculo de 1900 Emilia Pardo Baz an, impresionada por la novela Quo Vadis?, se preguntaba por las claves del exito de Sienkiewicz e intentaba buscar argumentos positivos que lo justicaran. Llegaba a la conclusion de que una de las razones mas poderosas que hace tan atractiva la novela de Sienkiewicz es que ese polaco viste con ropa nueva cosas antiguas (Pardo Bazan 1900: 634). Lo que quera decir que Sienkiewicz sabe conciliar con arte la innovacion y la tradicion (Pardo Baz an 1900: 634). Tambien le pareca acertado el tema de la Roma antigua, ya que agrada mas lo ya familiar, lo que no causa inusitada extra neza, pero aunque el polaco escribiera sobre la historia conocida y aunque Emilia Pardo Bazan vea los precedentes de Quo Vadis? en Actea d'Alexandre Dumas y en Fabiola de Nicholas Wiseman, no crea que esto la desmereciera, ya que en la literatura no hay planta que nazca sin semilla. Todo tiene precedentes. La originalidad consiste en el sello personal, no en decir algo que jamas se haya dicho !`porque se ha dicho tanto y tanto! (Pardo Bazan 1900: 634). El caso es que el exito de Sienkiewicz no solo no menguaba, sino que iba creciendo, alcanzando unas dimensiones nunca vistas. El mismo a no 1900 se publicaron cuatro traducciones diferentes al castellano de Quo Vadis? y una, no completa, al catalan. Y entre 1900 y 1902 se edito en Espa na la mayor parte de la produccion literaria del autor polaco, tanto en forma de libro como por entregas en distintos medios escritos6 . Aparte de Quo Vadis? despertaron entusiasmo las novelas Sin Dogma sobre nosotros la literatura francesa, puesta en castellano, casi siempre deplorable, por codiciosos editores espa noles. 6 Para m as datos sobre las publicaciones de las obras de Sienkiewicz en Espa na y Catalu na (donde se editaron la mayora de ellas) remito a los artculos de Llanas y Pinyol (2005: 849-863) y de Wislocka (1990: 279-287).
Bo zena Zaboklicka
y La Familia Polaniecki. Se multiplicaban elogios de intelectuales como Juan B. Ense nat7 , que deca: Desde George Sand y Gustavo Flaubert, desde Ernesto Renan y Alejandro Dumas hijo, la Europa intelectual no haba experimentado en grado tan superlativo la dulce y fuerte conmoci on de los goces esteticos. De entre las brumas del pueblo eslavo surga un ideal que iba dominando el hasto latino y la rudeza germ anica. Por cima del procedimiento fotogr aco de Turguenef, del realismo de Dostoievsky y del misticismo simb olico de Tolstoi sobresale la impresionable gura, verdaderamente humana, de ese escritor lleno de sinceridad, que reeja el alma de todo un pueblo (Ense nat 1900: 794).
En medio de esta avalancha de elogios vuelve a tomar la palabra Emilia Pardo Bazan, a quien al parecer el fen omeno del exito desorbitado de Sienkiewicz no dejaba dormir tranquila. Cuatro meses despues de su primer artculo sobre Quo Vadis?, la escritora publica en la prestigiosa Revista de Ciencias y Artes, La Lectura, un largo estudio, de trece paginas, sobre la vida y la obra del autor polaco que haba eclipsado con su fama a todos los escritores espa noles y extranjeros publicados en Espa na al inicio del siglo XX. En ese estudio, titulado Literatura extranjera. El autor de moda, Enrique Sienkiewicz, Pardo Bazan dice: (. . . ) Quo Vadis?, el mayor succes novelesco de estos u ltimos a nos, no es la mejor novela publicada en ellos ni con mucho, pero s la que re une condiciones para agradar y triunfar por mayora de votos. En este sentido es justa su victoria (Pardo Baz an 1901: 38-39).
Ya hemos dicho que la escritora gallega no comparta la satisfacci on de algunos intelectuales de la epoca como Juan Valera o Gomez de Baquero por el retorno de la novela hist orica, que ella atribua a la pereza mental del p ublico lector8 . Y si bien reconoca que Sienkiewicz estaba 7 8
Juan B. Ense nat (1854-1922), historiador, escritor y traductor del frances. Dice literalmente la multitud ama lo que conoce (Pardo Baz an 1901: 39).
dotado de un sentido que le permita sintonizar con las expectativas del p ublico, atribua su exito sobre todo a su inclinacion hacia la decadencia. (. . . ) Los escritores y artistas de na sensibilidad perciben las corrientes del gusto y saben lo que se puede otorgar y lo que se puede negar a la era. Esto es un merito, un don. (. . . ) Adviertase que no es el cristianismo lo que m as atrae en Quo Vadis?, sino el neronianismo : la crueldad unida al decadentismo artstico y al renamiento voluptuoso. Lo dem as. . . forma contraste y abrillanta con la luz la sombra (Pardo Baz an 1901: 39).
Pardo Bazan haba demostrado una gran perspicacia en observar lo que para los investigadores y crticos posteriores de Sienkiewicz qued o bastante claro, a saber, el aspecto decadente de la novela y su coincidencia con los gustos del p ublico de n de siglo. Quo Vadis?, con sus suntuosas escenas de la corte de Neron o las terribles descripciones del circo romano, se inscriba perfectamente en la estetica decadente9 . Probablemente esta es la razon por la que Emilia Pardo Bazan no le vaticinaba un gran futuro a la obra de Sienkiewicz, creyendo que lo que quedara de ella seran dos o tres relatos magistrales y alguna que otra descripcion. Antes de responder a la pregunta de por que la obra de Sienkiewicz, y sobre todo Quo Vadis?, supero la prueba del tiempo en contra de los pron osticos de quienes la inscriban en una corriente o una moda pasajeras creemos imprescindible hacer un comentario sobre las traducciones en que el lector espa nol pudo conocer el legado literario del escritor polaco. Aqu cabe se nalar que Emilia Pardo Bazan en sus artculos sobre Sienkiewicz conesa que lee sus obras en frances o en italiano, como si las traducciones al espa nol no merecieran su conanza por ser traducciones hechas a partir de otras traducciones. Sobre el pesimo nivel de las traducciones de Quo Vadis? se explaya el celebre crtico literario Eduardo Gomez de Baquero (Andrenio) en un largo artculo dedicado a la obra de Sienkiewicz y publicado en 1900 en La Espa na Moderna. Tras constatar al inicio que es seguro que todas 9
Al gusto por la decadencia propio de la epoca atribuye la popularidad de Quo Vadis? la investigadora de n de siglo Lily Litvak en su obra Espa na 1900. Modernismo, anarquismo y n de siglo. 1990. Barcelona: Anthropos. 247.
Bo zena Zaboklicka
las traducciones espa nolas de Sienkiewicz son traducciones. . . de las traducciones francesas (Gomez de Baquero 1900: 147), Andrenio acaba su texto con una diatriba dirigida contra las malas practicas traductoras y editoriales que destrozan obras literarias de valor. Arremete primero contra las mutilaciones del original, lo cual le parece escandaloso, y despues critica la falta de profesionalidad de los traductores que desconocen su propia lengua. Por ser un fragmento muy ilustrativo sobre la mala praxis de la traduccion, lo citamos casi ntegramente: En cuanto a las tres traducciones castellanas publicadas hasta ahora es mejor no hablar. En una de ellas aparece la obra mutilada de modo tan escandaloso, que quizas resulte reducida en una tercera parte de su texto; p arrafos enteros han desaparecido y el lector de esta versi on no se formar a m as que una remota idea del libro de Sienkiewicz; leera solo una especie de extracto. El lenguaje es en todas incorrectsimo, y a cada paso se topa con construcciones viciosas y galicismos de los que no tienen excusa alguna. Los que han ejecutado estas traducciones, m as que traductores han sido verdaderos traditores y aun verdugos. (. . . ) Es l astima que no haya alguna traducci on espa nola esmerada y correcta de obra tan notable. M as que tantas traducciones malas, habra valido una sola que fuese al menos gramatical. Como todava hay anunciadas versiones nuevas, esperemos que al cabo podr a leerse Quo Vadis? en castellano (G omez de Baquero 100: 156).
Detengamonos por un momento en la informacion sorprendente, desde el punto de vista de la practica traductora actual, sobre la mutilacion del texto original. Andrenio no precisa a que traducci on concreta se reere, no obstante podemos sospechar que se trataba de una practica habitual que no despertaba reparos en sus ejecutores. El caso mas conocido y descrito por Manuel Llanas y Ramon Pinyol es el de la traduccion de Bartomeu Amengual publicada por la editorial Juan Gili en 190110 . La edicion va precedida de dos paratextos que sin reparo 10
Para conocer mas detalles sobre las traducciones de Sienkiewicz en Espa na hasta 1939 remito al artculo de Llanas y Pinyol (2005: 849-863). Aunque el artculo trate de Catalu na, como la mayor parte de la obra de Sienkiewicz antes de 1939 se public o en Barcelona, el lector obtendr a una visi on bastante completa de la situaci on de la obra del escritor polaco en Espa na.
alguno justican la necesidad de la mutilacion del original. El primero es el pr ologo del arzobispo de Sevilla, el cardenal Marcelo Spnola, quien acusa a Sienkiewicz de rendir homenaje a la reprobable moda llamada realismo, lo que convierte su obra esencialmente cristiana en indecorosa y, por tanto, no aconsejable para los lectores catolicos. No obstante, el prologuista se congratula por la mejora del libro mediante la poda de todos aquellos elementos que pudieran ser moralmente nocivos para sus lectores. Dice entre otras cosas: Como quiera que sea, este yerro se enmendo en una versi on italiana publicada en Roma el a no pasado de 1900, y ha desaparecido del todo sin que de el quede vestigio, en la que V. edita, la cual puede leerse con perfecta tranquilidad, lo mismo por el hombre de mundo, que de nada se escandaliza, que por la tmida y pudorosa doncella (Llanas y Pinyol 2007: 852).
A continuacion viene la nota del traductor que explica que su traduccion se hizo a partir de una version italiana expurgada realizada por tres sacerdotes italianos y que en nada altera el espritu, la orientacion, ni siquiera la accion de tan popular novela, lo que no ocurre sino en contadas traducciones. Sienkiewicz era un escritor contradictorio y si bien es evidente que al inicio del siglo XX su obra fue recibida con entusiasmo en Espa na sobre todo por la opinion p ublica catolica y conservadora, que la saludo como exposici on del ideario cristiano, por otra parte, este p ublico tambien tuvo sus reservas respecto a una obra que para muchos catolicos militantes era correcta en su mensaje, pero inmoral en la manera fascinante y atractiva en que el autor describa el mundo pagano. Y as Sienkiewicz se convirti o para la jerarqua catolica en un autor sospechoso del que haba que desconar y al que haba que someter a una censura eclesiastica antes de permitir que lo leyera el gran p ublico. Por ejemplo, en un volumen de cuentos titulado Bartek el Victorioso, que nada tiene que ver con el mundo pagano, publicado en Barcelona en 1902 por la Tipografa Catolica, encontramos en la primera pagina interior, bajo el ttulo, la inscripcion Con licencia eclesiastica. A continuacion aparece una nota titulada Advertencia importante que dice:
Bo zena Zaboklicka Sienkiewicz, novelista polaco cat olico ha escrito numerosas obras, algunas de las cuales no pueden por su realismo excesivo y por al traducirlas haber sido mutiladas o alteradas con perda intenci on, ser de todos ledas: as, pues, nos permitimos aconsejar que no se lea obra alguna de este autor si no est a aprobada por la Autoridad eclesi astica.
Como vemos, la nota es ambigua y, puesto que los censores no pueden leer los originales, por si acaso reparten las posibles culpas entre el realismo del autor y los perdos traductores capaces de adornar el mensaje cristiano del escritor con imagenes indecorosas. De todas formas, no todas las mutilaciones que sufrieron las obras de Sienkiewicz en Espa na se deban a las imposiciones ideol ogicas. Un caso agrante de mutilacion grave e incomprensible es la perpetrada en uno de los relatos mas conocidos del autor polaco Latarnik, publicado con el ttulo El Torrero del Faro de Col on, en el primer n umero de la revista Nuestro Tiempo en enero de 1901. La traduccion es anonima, aunque se dice que es directa. Lo que resulta sorprendente es que el texto del relato en castellano no tiene nada que ver con su original polaco. Es decir, es el mismo argumento contado de forma muy diferente y cuya extension queda reducida aproximadamente a la mitad. No se trata de un relato que hubiera podido sufrir recortes de la censura por razones ideologicas, ya que cuenta una conmovedora historia de un viejo emigrante polaco que busca la paz y el descanso en un faro de Aspinwall, a la entrada del canal de Panama. Tampoco nos consta que Sienkiewicz hubiese escrito dos versiones del mismo relato, por lo tanto, cabe suponer que a alguien le parecio correcto vender a los lectores gato por liebre y publicar un extracto en lugar de la traduccion del texto completo. Lo que resulta curioso es que la revista Nuestro Tiempo demuestra especial interes por la literatura polaca publicando tambien en el mismo primer n umero un extenso artculo titulado Novelistas polacos de hoy, eso s, el artculo, igual que la traduccion del relato, es anonimo. Esta actitud tan negligente respecto a la autora de la traduccion resulta extra na en una revista que en otro n umero (03/1902) se dedica a elogiar la labor de un polglota y prolco traductor desaparecido haca
poco, Jose Santos Hervas, responsable de verter al castellano, entre otras obras, Pan Miguel Volodyovski de Sienkiewicz. Otra revista de cultura, La Espa na Moderna, a partir del 1 de enero de 1901 publica primero la novela En Vano y despues Hania, ambas sin mencionar el nombre de la persona que las tradujo. Tambien en este caso no se comprende la omision del traductor, ya que se trataba de una revista cuyos publicistas reclamaban con insistencia traducciones dignas. En una rese na dedicada a Los Caballeros Teut onicos, el lologo Fernando Araujo deca lo siguiente: (. . . ) Lo sensible es que, con todas sus bellezas, los malos traductores lo destrocen, como han hecho con Quo Vadis? Cierto es que la armaz on del trabajo es robusta y puede resistir las acometidas de los atrevidos; pero ya es tiempo de que cesen las profanaciones (Araujo 1901: 158).
Con la armacion de Fernando Araujo hemos llegado al punto de intentar responder a la pregunta de por que, pese a la nma calidad de las traducciones de la que dan cuenta pr acticamente todos los crticos, los intelectuales de la epoca demuestran tanto interes por el fenomeno Sienkiewicz. ?`Que quiere decir que la armazon del trabajo [de Sienkiewicz] es robusta y puede resistir las acometidas de los atrevidos? En Polonia quienes criticaban la obra de Sienkiewicz desde posiciones ideologicas reconocan al mismo tiempo su grandeza como estilista; se ha llegado a decir que Sienkiewicz era un verdadero mago de la palabra, lo admitan incluso sus detractores mas acerbos. Pero si las malas traducciones destruan justamente lo que constitua su excelencia, ?`c omo se explica el exito de su obra en Espa na? La mayora de los hombres de letras espa noles que abordaron esta cuestion admitan que era muy difcil emitir un juicio objetivo sobre la misma, ya que Sienkiewicz una en s un extraordinario talento narrativo con unas carencias sucientemente signicativas como para poderle atribuir el ttulo de verdadero gran escritor. La opini on que compartan varios intelectuales de la epoca era que Sienkiewicz posea un gran talento para elegir sus temas. En ese sentido www.lusosoa.net
Bo zena Zaboklicka
el mejor ejemplo era Quo Vadis?, la novela que se granjeo mas popularidad en Espa na. Eduardo Gomez de Baquero consideraba que el gran exito de Quo Vadis? responda a la universalidad e interes de su asunto (Gomez de Baquero 1900: 149). Eso quera decir que el mayor atractivo de la novela consista en mostrar las tradiciones clasica y cristiana como base de la civilizacion occidental moderna. El crtico se congratulaba tambien por la dignicacion de la novela historica, desplazada en los a nos anteriores del centro del interes de los escritores en favor de las novelas naturalistas o psicologicas. Todo pareca indicar, seg un el, que el p ublico lector saludaba la novela historica como una relativa novedad al tiempo que agradeca al escritor que con su arte resucitara los tiempos y los pueblos conocidos de forma incompleta y referencial a traves de la historia. Ya sabemos que algunos crticos, y entre ellos Emilia Pardo Bazan, no compartan con Andrenio la satisfaccion por el retorno de la novela historica. Sin embargo, ambos coincidan en que Quo Vadis? trata mas de Neron y de la sociedad pagana que de los cristianos (Gomez de Baquero 1900: 156). Pero si solo fuera el decadentismo de la obra lo que atraa la atencion de los lectores, su exito hubiera sido efmero, se hubiera limitado a su epoca. 多Por que no fue as? Quiza quien mejor responde a esta pregunta es el autor anonimo del mencionado artculo Novelistas polacos de hoy publicado en la revista Nuestro Tiempo en enero de 1901. Hay en la literatura contempor anea y en la misma Polonia quien aventaja a Sienkiewicz en la profundidad de pensamiento y en la intensidad de emoci on: ninguno lo supera en delicadeza y sencillez, y acaso esta sea la raz on principal de sus triunfos universales (An onimo 1901: 86).
El autor de dicho estudio reconoce que se podra profundizar en los aspectos historicos, arqueologicos o losocos de la novela y sacar mas provecho de todo ello, pero que seguramente sera en detrimento de su popularidad, porque ya no satisfara todos los gustos. Y este parece ser el mayor merito de la novela: que es una novela para todos. 多Por que razon? www.clepul.eu
(. . . ) Pues porque el autor no hiere a nadie, ni abruma a nadie con el peso de las preocupaciones que inspira aquella suprema crisis de la sociedad. Si resucitara el mundo pagano, se recreara en el retrato de Petronio, y yo se de muchas beatas que han llorado ante el San Pedro de Sienkiewicz. No hay lector que no halle en Quo Vadis? algo que le colme las medidas del gusto. (. . . ) Estas amabilidad y nura de la musa de Sienkiewicz que tanto resplandecen en esta novela, son notorias en todas las dem as, aun en los episodios guerreros terrorcos de sus novelas patri oticas, y lo mismo en los dramas domesticos de sus novelas contempor aneas. Por esto Sienkiewicz es un amigo de sus lectores (. . . ) No es un pensador que aborde de frente, bajo las formas seductoras de la obra de imaginaci on, los grandes problemas de la realidad, sino un artista maravilloso que nos consuela derramando sobre aquellas nuestras preocupaciones los dones de la misericordia y las ores del estilo (An onimo 1901: 87).
La intensa presencia de Sienkiewicz en la prensa cultural espa nola fue breve pero fructfera, ya que situo su obra en una posicion tan privilegiada, que los posteriores cambios de gustos y giros ideologicos no han conseguido desplazarla del sistema literario espa nol. Y aunque en los a nos posteriores al exito inicial recibio crticas que pretendan desplazarlo de su posicion central, lo cierto es que Sienkiewicz contin ua presente en Espa na mas de un siglo despues de su aparicion y funciona en el mercado espa nol como un clasico. Lo que sin duda contribuy oa que la popularidad de Sienkiewicz no disminuyera fueron las sucesivas versiones cinematogracas de Quo Vadis?, cinco en total, la primera de 1912 y la u ltima de 200111 . Hasta 1939 sus obras siguieron public andose en Espa na como si se tratara de un escritor propio y familiar que no necesitaba de presentaci on alguna. Durante la epoca franquista, 1939-1975, Sienkiewicz fue el autor polaco mas presente en los catalogos de muchas editoriales, concretamente veinticinco, que editaron como mnimo una obra suya en el mencionado perodo. La proliferaci on de las traducciones 11
La novela Quo Vadis? tuvo varias adaptaciones cinematogr acas: dos versiones mudas italianas, una de 1912 de Enrico Guazzoni y otra de 1924 de Gabrielo D'Annunzio y Georg Jacoby, la americana de 1951 de Mervyn Le Roy, la serie televisiva italiana de Franco Rossi de 1985 y la pelcula polaca de 2001 de Jerzy Kawalerowicz, que se produjo tambien en versi on televisiva.
Bo zena Zaboklicka
y adaptaciones de las obras del autor polaco es facilmente explicable. Sienkiewicz, que gracias al exito de Quo Vadis? fue etiquetado de escritor catolico y conservador, resultaba ser un autor seguro desde el punto de vista poltico e ideologico, un autor que no poda causar problemas al editor, y por otra parte supona un comprobado exito de ventas. Cabe decir, sin embargo, que las obras de Sienkiewicz seguan publicandose en unas seudotraducciones, casi todas indirectas, de pesima calidad. Para dar algunas cifras, solo de Quo Vadis? hemos podido contabilizar en Espa na ciento treinta ediciones en treinta traducciones diferentes, de las que al parecer solo tres son directas, dos al castellano y una al catalan. Sienkiewicz es, por tanto, un escritor que hasta hace poco se ha podido leer en castellano solo a traves de traducciones indirectas que no solamente no tienen mucho que ver con el Sienkiewicz polaco, sino que ademas a menudo tergiversaban el sentido de sus obras para satisfacer determinadas posiciones ideologicas. Acabado el regimen franquista, a pesar de que el mercado del libro se abriera a las literaturas de los pases de detras del tel on de acero y que se publicaran obras de diversos autores polacos ausentes en Espa na en la epoca anterior por motivos polticos, Sienkiewicz continuo presente en las libreras. Despues de 1975, Quo Vadis? se edit o en cuarenta ocasiones, mientras otras obras del escritor tuvieron dieciseis ediciones. Lo que es digno de observar es que en los u ltimos a nos ha habido algunas iniciativas editoriales dirigidas a la recuperacion de un Sienkiewicz mas proximo al original a traves de traducciones directas del polaco, y si bien Quo Vadis? ya se haba publicado en traducciones directas12 , en los u ltimos quince a nos ha habido editoriales que han vuelto a publicar textos menores en tama no y no por ello menos valiosos del autor po13 laco , lo cual demuestra la vitalidad y la actualidad de su literatura, 12 Al parecer la primera traducci on directa al castellano de Quo Vadis: Novela de la epoca de Ner on (1951. Madrid: Aguilar, Halar) fue obra de Ruth Hoeningsfeld, la siguiente se publico en 1985 (Madrid: Anaya) en traduccion de Elena Fern andez y Mauro Armi no y la tercera es una traducci on al catal an de Josep Maria de Sagarra de 1997 publicada por la Editoria Proa de Barcelona. 13 Nos referimos a tres ediciones crticas de relatos de Sienkiewicz: una de 1999 con el ttulo de Janko Muzykant [Janko el M usico], Latarnik [El Farero], Sachem, a cargo de Agnieszka Matyjaszczyk Grenda (autora de la introducci on, traducci on y notas), Madrid: Palas Atenea Ediciones, Colecci on Biling ue; otra de 2006, titulada
sobre todo de aquellos textos breves que tratan de temas humanos universales.
Menciones La investigacion que precedio la preparacion del presente artculo se llevo a cabo dentro del marco del Proyecto de investigacion Traducci on, recepci on y relaciones entre literaturas en el ambito cultural catalan, (Ref. FFI 2011-26500), Universitat Pompeu Fabra, Barcelona, investigador principal Dr. Enric Gallen Miret y del grupo de investigacion consolidado CRET sobre Estudios de Traduccion y Multiculturalidad, Universitat de Barcelona, investigadora principal Dra. Assumpta Camps (Ref. 2009SGRC-0850).
Relatos (traduccion e introduccion de Fernando Presa Gonzalez), Madrid: Catedra; y la tercera, que aunque se trate de una traducci on indirecta es una propuesta interesante, ya que propone una lectura nueva y actual del conocido relato de Sienkiewicz Latarnik ; se trata de una traduccion a la variante valenciana del catalan acompa nada de propuestas didacticas realizada por Anna Monz o, titulada El Faroner y editada en Alzira (Valencia) por la Editorial Germania en 2009.
Referencias Anonimo. 1901. Novelistas polacos de hoy. Nuestro Tiempo. 1/1901.82-88. Araujo, Fernando. 1901. Revista de revistas. Literatura. Los `Caballeros teut onicos' de Sienkiewicz. La Espa na Moderna. 01.01.1901. 152-158. Corominas, Pedro. 1900. Cronica artstica. La Revista Blanca. 01.08.1900.84. Ense nat, Juan B. 1900. Polonia y su literatura. La Ilustraci on Artstica. Periodico Semanal de Literatura, Artes y Ciencias. 989. 10 de diciembre. 794. Gomez de Baquero, Eduardo. 1900. La novela `Quo Vadis?' de Enrique Sienkiewicz. La Espa na Moderna. Octubre. 146-156. Guerra, A. 1901. Manifestaciones artsticas y literarias. La Revista Blanca. 15.01.1901. 22-36. Litvak, Lily. 1990. Espa na 1900. Modernismo, anarquismo y n de siglo. Barcelona: Anthropos. 247. Llanas, Manuel y Ramon Pinyol. 2005. Les traduccions d'escriptors polonesos a Catalunya ns a 1939. Luis Francisco Cercos et al., eds. Retos del Hispanismo en la Europa Central y del Este, Madrid: Palafox Pezuela, 2005. 849-863. Pardo Bazan, Emilia. 1900. Libros de moda. La Ilustraci on Artstica. Periodico Semanal de Literatura, Artes y Ciencias, 979. 1 de octubre. 634. Pardo Bazan, Emilia. 1901. Literatura extranjera. El autor de moda, Enrique Sienkiewicz. La Lectura. Revista de Ciencias y de Artes. Febrero. 34-46. Sienkiewicz, Henryk. 1896. Quo Vadis: A Narrative of the Time of Nero. Traduccion de Jeremiah Curtin. Boston: Little, Brown. Sienkiewicz, Enrique, 1901, Quo vadis. . . ?. Traducci on de D. Bartolome Amengual. Barcelona: Edici on Gili.
Sienkiewicz, Enrique. 1901. El Torrero del Faro de Col on. Nuestro Tiempo. 1/1901. Sienkiewicz, E. 1902. Bartek el Victorioso. Traduccion de M.C.G. Barcelona: Tipografa Cat olica. Valera, Juan. 1900. Sobre la duracion del habla castellana con motivo de algunas frases del Sr. Cuervo. Juan Valera. 1903. El Superhombre y Otras Novedades, Artculos Crticos Sobre Producciones Literarias de Fines del S. XIX y Principios del XX. Madrid: Librera de Fernando Fe, 1903. Edici on electronica. Consulta 24 de agosto de 2015. http://mgarci.aas.duke.edu/cgi-bin/celestina/sp/searchcontent.cgi?con ttype=text&pala=vadis&pos=281304&libroId=1515§ion=Sobre% 20la%20duraci%F3n%20del%20habla%20castellana§ionid=89406& hok=Q. Wislocka, Bo zena. 1990. Rara avis: Traducciones espa nolas del polaco. Margit Raders y Juan Conesa, eds. II Encuentros Complutenses en Torno a la Traduccion. Madrid: Universidad Complutense. 279-287.
As Literaturas Eslavas em Portugal durante o Estado Novo: Ensaio Bibliograco Teresa Seruya University of Lisbon / Catholic University of Portugal / Research Centre for Communication and Culture firstname.lastname@example.org
Maria Lin Moniz Catholic University of Portugal / Research Centre for Communication and Culture email@example.com
Abstract In the rst place, the paper discusses the dichotomies `centre/periphery' and `dominant/dominated' (Casanova 2002) when speaking of translation, in order to dene the relationship between the Portuguese and the Slavonic languages. It seems, however, that none of these dichotomies can be applied to this case, given the peripheral situation both of Portugal and the Slavonic countries within the European context. The core of the study consists of a synthesis of the Slavonic authors translated into Portuguese during the dictatorial regime of Estado Novo (1930-1974). The data were mainly collected from the ongoing research project `Intercultural Literature in Portugal (1930-2000): a Critical Bibliography'. Considering the bias of the Portuguese government of that time in relation to communist countries, an analysis of the reports by the Censoring Commission is also presented.
Teresa Seruya, Maria Lin Moniz
Keywords Censorship, Centre/periphery, Portuguese and Slavonic literatures, Translation.
1. Introduca o: a traducao como relacao de forcas lingusticas Como e sabido, a traducao e uma troca desigual que se produz no universo fortemente hierarquizado do campo literario mundial (Casanova 2002: 7). A existencia de uma hierarquia, nacional e lingustica, reecte-se em relacoes de domnio de umas linguaculturas sobre outras, ou seja, na oposicao entre os campos nacionais dotados de capital lingustico-literario e os que dele carecem, cando estes na dependencia dos primeiros. Segundo a mesma autora, pode medir-se o volume deste capital recorrendo a terminologia da sociologia poltica. Mas a sua conhecida proposta e que se substitua a oposicao centro/periferia pela de dominante/dominado, pois, segundo ela, se passa assim de um criterio simplesmente espacial ou hierarquico para relacoes de forca e de poder. Tem razao a autora quando comenta que a alteracao nao e meramente semantica. Apoiando-se no design da guracao oral (para ilustrar a ligacao das lnguas dominadas a um centro, atraves dos poliglotas) conclui que se podera medir o capital lingustico-literario de uma lngua pelo n umero de poliglotas literarios que a praticam e pelo n umero de tradutores literarios que fazem circular os textos dessa lngua para outras e de outras para ela. Contudo, o grupo das lnguas dominadas (lnguas nacionais recentes, com pouco capital literario, fraco reconhecimento internacional, n umero reduzido de tradutores) nao e homogeneo. Pela sistematizacao deste grupo que a autora propoe, tanto o portugues como as lnguas eslavas (talvez a excepcao do russo) poderiam ilustrar o terceiro subgrupo por ela considerado, por serem, tal como o neerlandes e o dinamarques que lhe servem de exemplos, lnguas de cultura ou de tradicao antiga ligadas a `pequenos' pases, (. . . ) [terem] uma historia e um credito relativamente importantes, mas poucos falantes, [serem] pouco praticadas pelos poliglotas e pouco reconhecidas para alem das fronteiras nacionais, isto www.clepul.eu
As Literaturas Eslavas em Portugal Durante o Estado Novo
e, pouco valorizadas no mercado literario mundial (Casanova 2002: 9 [nossa traducao]). Seria interessante e necessario analisar mais objectivamente esta proposta, ou seja, se, funcionando com os criterios apontados, o portugues e lnguas como o b ulgaro, o checo, o polaco, o servo-croata, para ja nao falar do russo, poder ao, com suciente sustentacao, constituir um grupo, o mesmo grupo. Por outro lado, a designacao de lngua dominada e susceptvel de melindres e levanta reservas. Se considerarmos, na historia da Europa, a constituicao tardia de muitas nacoes, e depois, ja no seculo XX, a colonizacao poltica e cultural da Europa de Leste pela antiga URSS, o adjectivo dominado revela-se possvel. Mas esta camada de sentido nao se aplicaria certamente ao portugues, caso em que, alem de tudo o mais, teramos de incluir na reexao a sua diversicacao pelo menos entre o portugues europeu, o africano e o brasileiro. As diferencas nao cariam por aqui. Assim, por exemplo, o livro de Henriette Walter A Aventura das Lnguas do Ocidente (Walter, s.d. ) nao inclui o grupo das lnguas eslavas neste conceito de Ocidente, apesar da data em que foi escrito (o original e de 1994), apesar tambem de elas pertencerem, evidentemente, aos ramos da famlia indo-europeia na Europa. Europa essa que vai do Atlantico aos Urais, como a autora enuncia ao elencar esses ramos (25). Mas a historia das lnguas eslavas parece ser outra, bem diferente dos ramos celtico, romanico e germanico. E pelo menos entre o m da II Guerra Mundial e a Queda do Muro, por estar sob o domnio sovietico, o mundo eslavo, de certo modo, nao era considerado parte da Europa (apesar da designacao Europa Oriental), identicada ent ao com a Europa Ocidental. Do ponto de vista portugues, se olharmos para o tempo do Estado Novo que nos ocupar a neste pequeno trabalho, vericamos que, a partir do nal da Segunda Guerra Mundial, toda a semantica concentrada na Cortina de Ferro girava a volta do Comunismo, elevado, a partir da Guerra Civil de Espanha (1936-1939), a principal adversario ideol ogico-poltico do regime e, por via do atesmo ocial professado nos chamados pases de Leste, da inuente Igreja Catolica (cf. Leal 2010). Este pre-conceito iria certamente inuenciar o panorama do transito de traducoes das lnguas do mundo eslavo para o portugues, e sera parte importante da construcao do respectivo contexto. www.lusosoa.net
Teresa Seruya, Maria Lin Moniz
A investigacao neste campo comecou h a menos de uma decada. Para alem de varios estudos de caso, s ao contributos importantes as teses de doutoramento de Jaroslav Spirk (2011) e de Hanna Pie ta (2013). Regista-se ainda o importante levantamento de J.E. Franco e Paula Carreira sobre o continuado interesse da revista Broteria pelo mundo eslavo, sobretudo russo, ao ponto de os autores armarem que a revista foi em Portugal, durante o perodo de mais de quatro decadas de ditadura, a janela para o mundo eslavo (Franco e Carreira 2011: 133) [nossa traducao]1 . Uma outra fonte de contextualizacao serao os Relatorios da Comissao de Censura ao Livro, dos quais daremos uma pequena amostra mais adiante. As justicacoes de autorizacao ou proibicao de livros vindos do mundo eslavo, quase sempre por uma lngua intermediaria (praticamente ninguem sabia lnguas eslavas naquele tempo), elucidam com clareza a agenda ideologica do Estado Novo em relacao a essa zona geograca. Foram referidas diferencas (tambem de percepcao) entre o portugues e as lnguas eslavas. Registe-se, porem, que alguma investigacao recente tem tentado um olhar contrario, a partir da sua comum situacao o caso do recente volume Peripheral Identities (Pinheiro et periferica. E al. 2011) e, a, de um estudo de Francisco Nazareth, que aproxima as duas periferias, a iberica e a balcanica (b ulgara), com base em semelhancas estruturais nas respectivas historias e identidades, nomeadamente na relacao com os imperios coloniais (Portugal e Espanha) e com o imperio otomano (no caso da Bulgaria), mas tambem dos dois espacos com a Europa: thus, the creation of a Iberian and Portuguese world in the crossroads of civilisations mirrors that of the Balkan and, more specically, Bulgarian world insofar as both are based upon intermediary identities (instead of out-of-date essentialism) (Nazareth 2011: 43). Hoje, o portugues e as lnguas eslavas sao duas periferias lingustico-culturais da Europa, cujo relacionamento nao e determinado por uma hierarquia. Ja eram periferias, certamente, no tempo do Estado Novo. Recuperamos, portanto, a terminologia rejeitada por Casanova. O nosso objecto de analise tem a ver com um tipo de transito tradutorio que a autora considera muito raro: a traducao de textos entre lnguas domi1
Existe uma vers ao portuguesa previa deste estudo (Franco e Carreira 2010).
As Literaturas Eslavas em Portugal Durante o Estado Novo
um tipo de transito em que a nadas, digamos agora: perifericas. E funcao das traducoes nos dois sentidos nao sera certamente, pelo menos em termos gerais, um caso de traducao-acumulacao, ou seja, traduzir por necessidade de capital liter ario (a necessidade existe, mas a fonte para preencher a falta nao era certamente a outra periferia que se iria procurar). Fica, portanto, a interrogacao sobre as raz oes para a presenca de literaturas eslavas no sistema literario portugues durante o Estado Novo. Tais razoes poderao emergir dos levantamentos a que procedemos. O caso da literatura russa, objecto de traducao indirecta e, certamente, especial e podera ser compreendido com o prestgio dos autores russos na cultura francesa intermediaria.
2. As literaturas eslavas em Portugal durante o Estado Novo (levantamento provis orio) Passamos a apresentacao de um resumo bibliogr aco das literaturas eslavas traduzidas em Portugal durante o Estado Novo. H a que ter em conta que os n umeros apresentados n ao s ao denitivos, ja que foram recolhidos a partir de duas fontes: o projecto ainda em curso, a base de dados online Intercultural Literature in Portugal 1930-2000: a Critical Bibliography (www.translatedliteratureportugal.org), obra conjunta de equipas do CECC (Centro de Estudos de Comunicacao e Cultura da Universidade Cat olica Portuguesa) e CEAUL (Centro de Estudos Anglsticos da Universidade de Lisboa). Abrange, para ja, o perodo de 1930-1955. Para o perodo de 1956-1974, recorremos a levantamentos anteriores levados a cabo para o referido projecto com base no Index Translationum, no Boletim de Bibliograa Portuguesa e em bibliotecas particulares. Comecamos com o n umero de registos das literaturas eslavas em confronto com a francesa e a espanhola (Figura 1). Com a francesa por ser considerada a cultura estrangeira dominante em Portugal ate a decada de 1970; com a espanhola por duas razoes: pelo facto de o presente estudo bibliograco se entender como contributo para o conhecimento das relacoes literarias ibero-eslavas e, ainda, porque estudos individuais den-
Teresa Seruya, Maria Lin Moniz
Figura 1. Literaturas eslavas em confronto com a espanhola e a francesa2 .
tro do projecto acima referido indiciam que esta literatura, a partir dos anos 1950, se tornou quantitativamente dominante. No entanto, ha a claricar que a importacao macica de autores espanhois se cou a dever a intensa producao de pseudotraducoes, sob pseudonimos anglo-saxonicos, em generos muito populares em Portugal (western, espionagem, novela sentimental e policial). Por exemplo, no perodo de 1930-1955, metade dos registos de autores espanhois correspondem a pseudotraducoes (210 em 420). Uma pesquisa mais aprofundada das decadas seguintes ira revelar certamente um aumento substancial destes n umeros. Entre 1930 e 1974, das literaturas eslavas traduzidas em Portugal a que contou com maior n umero de registos foi a literatura russa (88,3%), seguida, por ordem decrescente, da polaca (8,8%), croata (1,8%) e checa (0,25%) (Figura 2). Apresentamos tambem o n umero de registos de autores eslavos por decadas, por permitir detectar as grandes linhas de evolucao. O n umero de registos nem sempre coincide com o n umero de obras traduzidas, j a que se encontram contabilizadas neste estudo novas traducoes e/ou re2
RUS= R ussia, POL= Pol onia, CZE= Checoslov aquia, BGR= Bulg aria, HRV= Hungria, ESP= Espanha, FRA= Franca.
As Literaturas Eslavas em Portugal Durante o Estado Novo
Figura 2. Literaturas eslavas traduzidas em Portugal (em percentagens).
edicoes duma mesma obra3 . A Figura 3 mostra que, dos eslavos traduzidos em Portugal, foram os autores russos que predominaram claramente.
Figura 3. Numeros de registos de autores eslavos por decadas. 3
Os criterios das contagens nao puderam ser aplicados com o rigor exigido porque as fontes s ao diferentes.
Teresa Seruya, Maria Lin Moniz
Tabela 1. Numero de registos de autores russos traduzidos em Portugal. Autor
Dostoievski, Fedor (1821-1881) Tolstoi, Lev (1828-1910) Gorki, Maksim (1868-1936) Gogol, Nikolay (1809-1852) Tchekov, Anton (1860-1904) Sholokhov, Mikhail (1905-1984) Soljenitsine, Aleksandr (1918-2008) Ehrenburg, Ilya (1891-1967) Pasternak, Boris (1890-1960) Simonov, Konstantin (1915-1979) Turgenev, Ivan (1818-1883) Korolenko, Vladimir (1853-1921) Tolstoi, Aleksei (1883-1945) Andreyev, Leonid (1871-1919) Bulgakov, Mikhail (1891-1940) Lermontov, Mikhail (1814-1841) Maiakovski, Vladimir (1893-1930) Nekrasov, Viktor (1911-1987) Pushkin, Aleksandr (1799-1937) Fedin, Konstantin (1892-1977) Babel, Isaac (1894-1940) Bunin, Ivan (1870-1953) Goncharov, Ivan A. (1812-1891) Kuprin, Aleksandr (1870-1938) Obruchev, Vladimir (1863-1956)
No vol. 82 54 41 18 17 10 10 8 8 8 8 7 7 6 4 4 4 4 4 3 2 2 2 2 2
As Literaturas Eslavas em Portugal Durante o Estado Novo Saltykov, Mikhail (1826-1889) Simeonov, Andrei (?-?) Soloviev, Leonid (?-?) Tendriakov, Vladimir (1923-1984) Divomliko, Lavr (1932-2005) Aitmatov, Chinghiz (1928-2008) Dudintsev, Vladimir (1918-1998) Garshin, Vsevolod (1855-1888) Ianovski, Iuri (1902-?) Ivanov, Vsevolod (1895-1963) Ivanowna, Varinka (?-?) Kataev, Valentin (1897-1986) Konetski, Viktor (1929-) Lavrenev, Boris (1891-1959) Mirsky, Dmitri (1890-1939) Panova, Vera (1905-1973) Paustovsky, Konstantin (1892-1968) Pilniak, Boris (1894-1938) Rachmanova, Alja (1898-1991) Sologub, Fedor (1863-1927) Tchaplina, Vera (?-?) Tinianov, Iuri (1894-1943) Werner, Max (Schifrin, Aleksandr Mikhailovich) (1901-1951)
2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Dos 48 autores russos publicados em Portugal, os mais populares foram Dostoievski (82 registos), Tolstoi (54), Gorki (41), Gogol (18), Chekov (17), Cholokov (10) e Soljenitsine (10) (Tabela 1). (Os nomes dos autores encontram-se grafados de acordo com a informacao constante dos respectivos registos.) Contamos 14 autores polacos diferentes, dos quais se destaca Sienkiewicz, com 20 registos de 7 obras diferentes (Tabela 2). Ha um dado curioso relativo a Wanda Wasilewska: em 1945 foi publicado Arco-ris (romance da ocupacao alema na R ussia), pela livraria Tavares Martins, tendo nos encontrado dois relatorios da Censura, datados de 1947, nos quais se proibia a versao inglesa (R2975/1947) e a francesa www.lusosoa.net
Teresa Seruya, Maria Lin Moniz
Tabela 2. Numero de registos de autores polacos traduzidos em Portugal. Autor
Sienkiewicz, Henryk (1846-1916) Andrzeyevsky, Jerzy (?-?) Choromanski, Michal (1904-1972) Dobraczynski, Jan (1910-1994) Gombrowicz, Witold (1904-1969) Iwaszkiewicz, Jaroslaw (1895-1980) Koscian, Wladislaw (?-?) Kuczynski, Boguslav (1913-) Mrozeck, Slawomir (?-?) Reymont, Ladislaw (1867-1925) Stypulkowski, Zbigniew (1904-1979) Tyrmand, Leopold (1920-1985) Wasilewska, Wanda (1905-1964) Zeromski, Stefan (1864-1925)
20 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
(R2976/1947), respectivamente. Foram 8 os autores checos traduzidos (Tabela 3), com evidente destaque para Kafka.
Tabela 3. Numero de registos de autores checos traduzidos em Portugal. Autor
Kafka, Franz (1883-1924) Benes, Karel Josef (1896-1969) Capek, Karel (1890-1938) Hasek, Jaroslav (1883-1923) Hostovsky, Egon (1908-1973) Majerov a, Marie (1882-1967) Mnacko, Ladislav (1919-) Otchenasek, Jan (?-?)
8 3 2 2 1 1 1 1
As Literaturas Eslavas em Portugal Durante o Estado Novo
Tabela 4. Numero de registos de autores da ex-Jugoslavia traduzidos em Portugal.
Andric, Ivo (1892-1975) Krleza, Miroslav (1893-1981) Bulatovic, Miodrag (1930-1991) Djilas, Milovan (1911-1995)
2 2 1 1
Os autores da ex-Jugoslavia (Tabela 4) nao tiveram grande express ao neste contexto, contabilizando-se apenas 4 autores diferentes. Os autores b ulgaros apresentados aos leitores portugueses sao os constantes da u nica obra encontrada, Contos b ulgaros, antologia traduzida por Maria da Conceicao Magalhaes e publicada em 1941 pela Editorial Gleba, na qual foram includos contos de 13 autores diferentes. As antologias constituram um importante veculo de divulgacao da literatura eslava entre nos. A Tabela 5 apresenta os resultados do levantamento feito de antologias de autores eslavos (num total de 9) publicadas em Portugal durante a ditadura salazarista. Os nomes dos autores sao apresentados tal como surgem nos volumes, evidenciando-se, por um lado, a ausencia de consenso no que toca a sua graa e, por outro, a tendencia domesticante de algumas antologias, ao procurar nomes portugueses equivalentes como, por exemplo, Antao Chekov ou Joao Bunine. Os autores eslavos includos em antologias sao, em muitos casos, conhecidos por outras suas obras individuais (Dostoievski, Tolstoi, Gogol, etc.). No entanto, a antologia Contos Desta Guerra inclui autores pouco ou nada conhecidos dos leitores portugueses. Sendo as lnguas eslavas conhecidas apenas por uma minoria, nao podemos deixar de fazer uma breve referencia as lnguas de mediacao. Com base nos relatorios da Censura, constatamos que dos 210 ttulos submetidos a an alise, 89 chegaram atraves duma lngua de mediacao, como apresentamos na Tabela 6, tendo a maioria (121) chegado ja traduzida as maos dos censores.
Teresa Seruya, Maria Lin Moniz
Tabela 5. Antologias de autores eslavos publicadas no Estado Novo. Ttulo
Ano Editora Tradutor
F. Lopes Graca
Contos B ulgaros
M. da Conceicao Magalh aes
Dostoiewsky Garin Gogol Korolenko Surguchov Tasin Tolostoi [sic] Constatinov, Constantino (2 contos) Ermazov, Eugenia (Eugenia Mars) Ivanov, Dimitri (2 contos) Karavelov, Liubene Mihailov, Pantcho Petkanov, Constantino N. Polianov, Vladimir Pope-Dimitrov, Emmanuel Popova-Mutafova, Fanny Rakitine, Nicolas Ras Stamatov, G.P. Thodorov, Tetko Y. Velitchkov, Constantino (2 contos) Bunin, Ivan Dostoiewski, Fedor Garshi, V. Gorki, M aximo Korolenko Pushkin, Alexandre
As Literaturas Eslavas em Portugal Durante o Estado Novo
Contos Desta Guerra
Erclio Cardoso / Oldemiro Cesar
Contos Populares Dinheiro Maldito e Outros Contos Mestres do Conto Eslavo
Gr aca Lisbonense Livraria Renascenca
Portug alia Jo ao Cabral do Nascimento
Turgenev, Ivan Babel Galin, B. Gorobova Kozhevnikov, W. Loschenko, M. Rudeny, Vladimiro Sharov Sobolev, Le onidas Tikhonov, Nikolai Washentzew, S. Wassilewska, Wanda4 (3 contos) Yampolsky, Boris Zabolotnig, W. Zlatopolsk, Isbach e Z. Tolstoi, Le ao
Tolstoi, Le ao
Andreiev, Le onidas Nicolaievich Bunine, Jo ao Aleixievich Chekov, Ant ao Pavlovich Chirikov, E. Dostoievski, Teodoro Micailovich Garxine, Osvaldo Micailovich Gogol, Nicolau Vasilievich Gorki, Maximo (pseud. de Aleixo Maximovich Pieskov) Korolenko, Vladimiro Glaktionovich Kuprine, Alexandre Ivanovich Puskine, Alexandre Sergievich Sologub, Teodoro Tolstoi, Le ao Nicolaevich Turguenev, Jo ao Sergievich
Teresa Seruya, Maria Lin Moniz
Cinco 1964 Novelas de Antecipacao Sovieticas Os 1964 Grandes Contistas Russos
Est udios Cor
Altov, G. e Jurasleva, V. Grechnov, M. Safranov, I. Saparine, V. Strugatski, A. e B.
Manuel Fraz ao
Cholokhov, Mikhail Dostoievski, Fedor Ehrenburg, Ilya Gogol, Nicolau Lermontov, Mikhail Tchekov, Anton Nabokov, Vladimir Pasternak, Boris Saltykov, Mikhail Tolstoi, Le ao Turgueniev, Ivan
3. A literatura eslava e a censura Tendo em conta a obvia antipatia da ditadura pelos autores eslavos, a priori conotados com o regime comunista, procedemos a uma analise dos relatorios da Comissao de Censura ao livro (1934-1974), relativamente as obras destes autores.
Tabela 6. Numero de obras eslavas chegadas a Censura numa lngua de mediacao.
Frances Ingles Alem ao Espanhol Esperanto
63 3 4 18
As Literaturas Eslavas em Portugal Durante o Estado Novo
Figura 4. Literatura eslava submetida a Censura5 . Foram a censura 421 obras de autores eslavos, o que representa 4,21% do total dos relatorios chegados a Censura e guardados nos Arquivos Nacionais da Torre do Tombo (cerca de 10.000 relatorios). Das 421, apenas metade consideramos obras de literatura, tratando as restantes de quest oes poltico-ideol ogicas, historiograa ou divulgacao cientca. Dos 214 ttulos submetidos a censura, 122 foram autorizados, 4 autorizados com cortes e 99 proibidos (Figura 4). Ehrenburg e Maiakovski foram os autores com maior percentagem de proibicoes. No outro extremo encontram-se Dostoievski e Tolstoi, sempre autorizados. A m de darmos uma ideia dos criterios usados pelos censores, relatamos algumas das apreciacoes a livros de proveniencia eslava, que consideramos representativas do discurso da Censura. 1. Um dos romances autorizados com cortes foi Tom as Bulba, de Gogol, em 1943. Inicialmente, o leitor deu parecer negativo, com base nos exemplos considerados pouco edicantes encontrados na obra: a falta de respeito dos lhos para com os pais, a m a ndole dos cossacos e a linguagem pouco adequada. No entanto, o parecer nal foi contrario, concordando em cortar determinadas passagens, apenas para evitar certos exageros da crtica mais sensvel (R2150/1943)6 . 5 6
A=Autorizado, Acc=Autorizado com cortes, P=Proibido. R= Relat orio, seguido do respectivo n umero e pela data.
Teresa Seruya, Maria Lin Moniz
2. Ao conto O cavalheiro de Sao Francisco de Bunin, includo na antologia Contos Eslavos, foram igualmente recomendados cortes, desta feita devido a descricao pouco simpatica que se faz dos italianos, muito embora o conto tenha sido escrito em fase da vida da It alia anterior a Mussolini (R2135/1943). 3. Em 1950 a versao alem a de O Valente Soldado Chveik foi proibida pela Censura, por denegrir a missao militar e assentar inteiramente na mstica comunista (R4481/1950). A primeira traducao portuguesa viria a ser publicada em 1961, pela Portugalia Editora, numa traducao de Alexandre Cabral. 4. Os censores nunca deram parecer negativo as obras de Dostoievski, apesar de, em 1952, a obra Crime e Castigo nao ser considerada de leitura aconselhavel. Mas, dado que ja circulava no pas havia largos anos, ate mesmo no cinema, o leitor nao viu nada que justique uma tal medida postuma (R4675/1952). 5. Tambem por ja circular ha 50 anos em Portugal, O Espi ao de Gorki foi autorizado em 1956, reconhecendo-se que nao e, de resto, dos piores na propaganda nihilista (R5698/1956). No entanto, diz ainda o censor, se tivesse sido publicado na data em que foi a Censura, certamente n ao teria sido autorizado. 6. Simonov, nao obstante ser considerado um escritor not avel e laureado de premio Staline (R5302/1955), estaria integrado na doutrina comunista, pelo que foi proibido em 1955. No entanto, Compagnons d'armes / Companheiros de armas viria a ser traduzido e publicado em 1970. 7. Merece reparo especial o comentario feito ao romance do mesmo autor Os Vivos e os Mortos, mas ja em 1964: Apesar de o seu autor ter ja alguns livros proibidos por estes Servicos (talvez devido a inuencias circunstanciais do tempo, da epoca em que foram apreciados) nao vejo razao para a proibicao deste, pois trata-se de uma obra de exaltacao do herosmo e do sofrimento russos e nao de propaganda ideologica comunista (R7593/1964). www.clepul.eu
As Literaturas Eslavas em Portugal Durante o Estado Novo
8. Curiosamente, A Cidade Natal de Nekrasov foi autorizado em 1960, com o seguinte argumento: Com ser obra de um escritor russo, mesmo contemporaneo, nao quer dizer que seja um livro inconveniente ou de proibir (R6629/1960). 9. No mesmo ano, Bolino, do b ulgaro Karasiavov, foi proibido com base na nacionalidade do autor, nas notas biogracas includas no volume em apreciacao e no local e data de publicacao, ja que o censor desconhecia tanto a lngua de partida como a da traducao, o esperanto (R6769/1960). 10. Nao sera de surpreender que o romance Lolita de Nabokov tivesse sido proibido (em 1959), uma vez que, no parecer do censor, todo o livro resuma sensualidade e pornograa acompanhadas de umas banais tiradas losocas talvez para justicar a sua publicacao mas sem tal conseguir (R6375/1959). Claro que, a par da ideologia comunista, sensualidade e pornograa eram motivos para proibicao imediata. 11. Por vezes era permitida a circulacao da obra, com o argumento de que os intelectuais nao se deixariam inuenciar t ao facilmente o caso de Autobiograa e Poemas de pelas ideias subversivas. E possvel que tenha Maiakowski, submetido a censura em 1974: E um certo efeito de incitamento a adopcao de ideias revolucionarias, mas tal parece difcil no p ublico a quem a obra pode interessar, e esta tem um indiscutvel valor literario (R38/1974). Foi au nica obra do autor autorizada neste perodo em estudo, contra 4 proibicoes. 12. Transcrevemos dois u ltimos comentarios. Repare-se como Di ario Duma Exilada Russa, de Alia Rachmanova e um bom livro que deve ser autorizado (R4912/1953), por atacar o comunismo em diversas paginas, devidamente enumeradas pelo censor; por outro lado, Les Hommes du 1905 Russe, de Michel Matveev nao interessa que circule, por incitar a revolucao, mas interessa conhecer a tecnica utilizada. . . (R4577/1951).
Teresa Seruya, Maria Lin Moniz
4. Considerac oes nais De um primeiro levantamento bibliograco como o que acabamos de apresentar nao se pode esperar uma conclusao, mas tao-somente a certeza de que se levantou apenas a ponta de um veu que cobre um vastssimo campo por desbravar nas relacoes literarias ibero-eslavas. E de esperar e desejar que este primeiro passo incentive futuras pesquisas, porventura de enfoque mais bilateral, e desejavelmente por meio de equipas bi ou multilingues, pois nao dispomos ainda de investigadores (portugueses) em Estudos de Traducao com suciente domnio das lnguas eslavas (a excepcao do caso luso-polaco). O alargamento e aprofundamento de uma linha luso-eslava nos Estudos de Traducao em Portugal e, sem d uvida, um captulo promissor da historia da traducao no nosso pas.
Referencias Antologias Andreiev, Leonidas, Mestres do Conto Eslavo. 1957. Trad. Joao Cabral do Nascimento. Lisboa: Portugalia, Col. Antologias Universais, n.o 19. Babel, Contos Desta Guerra. 1946. Trad. Erclio Cardoso e Oldemiro Cesar. Lisboa: Editorial Gleba. Col. Contos e Novelas n.o 26. Constatinov, Constantino, et al. Contos B ulgaros. 1941. Trad. Maria da Conceicao Magalhaes. Lisboa: Editorial Gleba. Col. Contos e Novelas n.o 13. Dostoiewsky, et al. Contos Eslavos. 1943. Trad. Benvinda Caires. Lisboa: Editorial Gleba. Col. Contos e Novelas n.o 4. Gogol. Nicolas, et al. Os Grandes Contistas Russos. 1964. Trad. Manuel Frazao. Lisboa: Editorial Presenca. Col. Presenca no 21. V. Saparine, et al. Cinco Novelas de Antecipac ao Sovieticas. 1964. Trad. Alcides Rocha. Lisboa: Est udios Cor. Col. Cor de Bolso. Tolstoi, Lao, et. al. Contos. 1941. Trad. Fernando Lopes Graca. Lisboa: Edicoes Sirius. Tolstoi, Leao, et. al. Contos Populares. 1947. Lisboa: Graca Lisbonense, Col. Claridade n.o 6. Tolstoi, Le ao. 1954. Dinheiro Maldito e Outros Contos. Trad. Francisco Quintal. Lisboa: Livraria Renascenca.
Outras obras Casanova, Pascale. 2002. Consecration et accumulation de capital litteraire. Actes dela recherche en sciences sociales 144:1. 7-20.
Teresa Seruya, Maria Lin Moniz
Franco, Jose Eduardo e Paula Carreira. 2010. O mundo eslavo como horizonte e fronteira da Europa segundo os jusutas. Evolucao da apreciacao de pases eslavos na revista Broteria . Jose Eduardo Franco, Teresa Pinheiro e Beata Cieszy nska, eds., Europa de Leste e Portugal: Realidades, relacoes e representacoes, Lisboa: Esfera do Caos. 139-153. Franco, Jose Eduardo e Paula Carreira. 2011. The Slavic World as the Horizon and the Frontier of Europe. Representations of Slavic Countries in the Jesuit Journal Broteria. Jose Eduardo Franco, Teresa Pinheiro e Beata Cieszy nska, eds., Europa de Leste e Portugal: Realidades, Relacoes e Representacoes, Lisboa: Esfera do Caos. 133-212. Leal, Ernesto Castro. 2010. A Recepcao da Revolucao Russa de Outubro de 1917 em Portugal. Jose Eduardo Franco, Teresa Pinheiro e Beata Cieszy nska, eds., Europa de Leste e Portugal: Realidades, Relac oes e Representacoes, Lisboa: Esfera do Caos. 119-128. Nazareth, Francisco. 2011. Occidentalism and Post-empire(s) in Semi-Peripheral European Societies: Balkan and Iberian Cultural Parallels. Jose Eduardo Franco, Teresa Pinheiro e Beata Cieszy nska, eds., Europa de Leste e Portugal: Realidades, Relacoes e Representacoes, Lisboa: Esfera do Caos. 33-45. Pie ta, Hanna. 2013. Entre Periferias: Contributo para a Hist oria Externa da Traducao da Literatura Polaca em Portugal (1855-2010). Tese de doutoramento. Lisboa: Universidade de Lisboa. Pinheiro, Teresa, Beata Cieszy nska e Jose Eduardo Franco, coords. 2011. Peripheral Identities: Iberia and Eastern Europe between the Dictatorial Past and the European Present. Chemnitz: Pearlbooks. Spirk, Jaroslav. 2011. Ideology, Censorship, Indirect Translations and Non-Translation: Czech Literature in 20 th Century Portugal. Tese de doutoramento. Praha: Univerzita Karlova. Walter, Henriette. s.d. . A Aventura das Lnguas do Ocidente. Lisboa: Terramar.
Figuring out the Local within the Global: (Sub)systems and Indirect Translation Martin Ringmar Lund University Martin.Ringmar@nordlund.lu.se
Abstract Global translation has been seen as a hierarchical `world system', where the main ow is from the centre towards the (semi)peripheries. Although no doubt valid, this model tends to obscure other types of relations: inter-peripheral, regional etc. In fact, a closer look at the gures will reveal that translation exchange occurs to a great extent regionally. This is exemplied here by the Scandinavian/Nordic subsystem, which is characterised by intensive `internal translation' between its three central languages, placing them among the leading source languages in the `global' statistics. The article also examines the close relation between hierarchical systems and indirect translation, arguing, for instance, that a distinction between secondary and tertiary translation may have systemic relevance. Keywords Global translation system, Local subsystems, Inter-Nordic translation, Indirect translation, Secondary vs. tertiary translation.
1. Introduction Translation exchange has been described as a structured world-system, where central cultures radiate towards the peripheries and where the centre alone is entitled to attribute value to literary works and writers (Heilbron 1996, 1999, 2010; Casanova 1999, 2002, 2005). As often in work inspired by Pierre Bourdieu, this research is informed by a hierarchic view of the world: The relations he [Bourdieu] constructs are invariably competitive rather than cooperative, unconscious rather than conscious, and hierarchical rather than egalitarian (Swartz 1997: 63). Given numerous inequalities of global literary exchange (e.g. the trade surplus of English), such a view seems well founded. There are, however, other types of exchange that merit attention, among them regional relations between (semi)peripheries. In fact, the `global' translation system is, on closer inspection, largely local. The praxis of indirect translation (ITr) translating translations is closely linked to systemic hierarchies. It is in particular a concern of peripheries and it is normally here that ITr will be observed (and/or criticised); witness the extensive German research on early-modern ITr, which concerns German(y) in its peripheral capacity in relation to French (/France)1 . There is no corresponding German interest in the country's role as a mediator to and from (and between) eastern and northern Europe (nor, for that matter, any comprehensive Anglo-American research on English as a mediating language in today's world). The centre's ignorance of its role as mediator could partly explain why research on ITr has been limited hitherto assuming central priorities to dominate scholarly agendas , and why, what there is, tends to emanate from scholars linked to (semi)peripheral languages like the Slavic, Iberian or Nordic language2 . In studies that actually focus on 1 So far, the most comprehensive research on ITr has been in connection with Sonderforschungsbereich 309: Die literarische Ubersetzung in G ottingen 1985-97, focussing on translations via French into German in the 17th and 18th centuries (see Frank and Turk 2004 for a summary and Graeber 2004 concerning ITr; cf. also Lambert 2002: 208. for a critical view of the project). 2 Following Nordic usage, a distinction will be made between `Scandinavian' referring to Denmark, Norway and Sweden and `Nordic', which also includes Finland
Figuring out the Local within the Global
ITr, it is a standard preamble to remark on this dearth (e.g. Stackelberg 1988: 7; Edstrom 1991: 3; Dollerup 2000: 19; He 2001: 197; Ringmar 2007; St. Andre 2009: 231). However, the claim that only [t]wo studies have appeared since the beginning of the twenty-rst century (St. Andre 2009: 231) was an obvious underestimation even in 2009, and since then a fair number of studies on ITr has been published (Pie ta 2012: 311). Scholarly avoidance of ITr could also be part of a general Ber uhrungsangst, rooted in widespread negative attitudes towards the phenomenon, as suggested by Toury (1988: 139): [I]ntermediate translation is not some kind of disease to be shunned, as it so often is among translations scholars, owing to a fallacious projection of a currently prevailing cultural norm, ascribing uppermost value to translating from the original, onto the plane of theoretical premises for research 3 . [italics original]
According to Casanova, translation between peripheries whether direct or indirect is not specied is extremely unusual (cas tres rare) (Casanova 2002: 10). Such categorical statements may need further scrutinising, however, not least in relation to ITr. Is there a clear, irrevocable tendency to move from indirect to direct translation when contacts between peripheries intensify (cf. Ringmar 2008)? Do retranslations as a rule conrm this order of priority (i.e., will an indirect translation be followed by a direct, rather than the other way round)? What role do ideologies or institutions (political, academic etc.), or committed individuals, play in overcoming the obstacles to direct translation? What forces or agents are likely to hinder (or revoke) such a development? In a post-romantic paradigm of original text primacy, ITr is often concealed or denied, which obviously renders research dicult (cf. Toury 1995: 134). Accordingly, paratextual claims to direct translation are not and Iceland. Danish, Norwegian and Swedish are mutually intelligible, unlike the more distantly related Icelandic; Finnish, on the other hand, is genetically unrelated with the other four languages (cf. Ringmar 2007: 5, 2008: 167.). 3 In a later version of the article (A Lesson from Indirect Translation), included as chapter 7 in Toury 1995 (chapter 9 in Toury 2012), the explicit addressee of this criticism (translation scholars) has been omitted (1995: 129/2012: 161).
always to be trusted, nor are, of course, paratext-dependent bibliographies (cf. Ringmar 2007: 7f.; `paratext' is here understood as title page, preface, blurb, etc.). In addition, on-line bibliographies do not normally allow for general searches on ITr. In short, much basic mapping concerning (in)direct translation in inter-peripheral communication still needs to be done (an example of such research is Pie ta 2012). ITr is typically supposed to involve three texts in three languages: original source text > mediating (/intermediate) text > end target text (Ringmar 2012: 154). Whereas this denition seems fairly straightforward and (possibly) uncontroversial, there is less consensus on the denomination, where an array of terms has been suggested (for the process and/or the end product): `double, intermediary, intermediate, mediated, pivot, relay, secondary, second-hand translation' etc., leading Pym to conclude that, [i]n short, we have created a mess (2011: 80). The fact that Toury in 1995 opted for indirect translation not used in an earlier version (Toury 1988) may have reinforced its general use, given the status of Toury (1995) as an instant classic (Simeoni 2008: 332), and indirect translation is indeed Pym's recommendation, [i]n the absence of any really happy solution (Pym 2011: 80; cf. Pie ta 2012: 311.). Relay translation is also widely used, not least when relay interpreting and ITr are treated together (e.g. Gambier 2003; St. Andre 2009). On the other hand, the use of retranslation (and French retraduction ) in the sense of ITr now seems less current (cf. Pym 2011: 90; Dollerup 2009: 2), as this term is currently taken to mean a second or later translation of a single source text into the same target language (Koskinen and Paloposki 2010: 294).
1.1. Index Translationum The Unesco database Index Translationum (henceforth: Index) is an indispensable tool for the study of global translation ows, which provides accumulated statistics from 1979 (year of digitalisation) until today. It is notoriously unreliable, however, partly due to inconsistent and non-harmonised reporting from the national catalogues (including variation in insertion of pre-1979 publications; cf. Heilbron 1999: 433; www.clepul.eu
Figuring out the Local within the Global
PTE: 4). In fact, even a quick glance at Index will reveal various inconsistencies and inaccuracies4 . `Improving' the gures e.g. by checking against national databases is unfeasible, however, as it would involve scrutinising thousands of entries, and the statistics simply have to be taken at their face value (all the while keeping these disclaimers in mind). Consequently, the data may serve only as an indication, i.e., in practice, as a conrmation of what is already known (or at least plausible), as, for instance, when Index conrms the post 1990 decline of Russian as SL, or the simultaneous ascent of Japanese (cf. PTE: 9). Like most other translation bibliographies, Index has not been designed to facilitate research on ITr and it does not allow generalised searches such as `all translations from Russian into Spanish via French', although occasional entries may contain information on indirectness. Among available search options, both country of publication and genre are of relevance here (e.g. Literature, which makes up approximately half the data in Index)5 . Linked to its homepage are a few Indexbased studies, among them Publishing [literary] translations in Europe Trends 19902005 (no year of publishing/name of authors; referred to here by PTE), which oers a plethora of diagrams and tables (but little analysis), for Europe as a whole as well as for 20 countries individually (inter alia Denmark, Finland, and Norway). It is worth keeping in mind that while general Index gures cover all genres of translation from 1979 onwards (unless limitations apply), PTE contains statistics from Index for literary translation 1990-2005.
4 One complication from a Nordic perspective is the Index division of Norwegian (which has two written standards: bokm al and nynorsk ) into Norwegian, Norwegian, bokm al and Norwegian, nynorsk; of these the rst has by far most entries. The same text may be classied dierently in a haphazard way (e.g. Agatha Christie's A Murder on the Orient Express, of which the same translation has been labelled as Norwegian in four editions and Norwegian, bokm al in two). This split of Norwegian in three may hamper comparability (the problem is not discussed in PTE, which only mentions Norwegian). As an example, among many, of down-right oddities in Index, it may suce to mention that the Spanish translation of The Animal Family by the American author Randall Jarell is listed as a translation from Finnish! 5 Searches in Index have been performed November 2012 to January 2013.
2. The translation world system The translation world system, as described by Heilbron and Casanova, is based on a four-layered global language system introduced by de Swaan (1993, 2001) and preceded, in turn, by various models of political or economical `world systems'. According to de Swaan, the communicative value of a language is decided by its number of L2-speakers: The `centrality', ci , of a language Îťi is accordingly dened by the proportion of multilingual speakers that are also competent in Îťi (Swaan 2001: 33) [italics original]. This is qualied by Casanova as L2-speakers endowed with cultural capital (polyglottes litteraires) translators, editors, critics, journalists etc. who constitute l'espace litteraire international (Casanova 2002: 8). The translation system consists of one hyper-central language, followed by central, semi-peripheral and peripheral languages (Heilbron 1996: 343; 1999: 434). Instead of central-peripheral, Casanova prefers dominating -dominated, which supposedly underlines the inequality of the relation (Casanova 2002: 8; Casanova 2005: 80, note 14). All the non-European central languages of de Swaan's model (Chinese, Arabic, Swahili etc.) are reduced to peripheral status in the global translation system, which its name notwithstanding is largely a matter for Europe, where approximately 80 % of all translations are published (85 % of literary translations; PTE: 5). (This Euro-centrism could help to explain why, for instance, Italian, being more central in Europe, has been more translated than Spanish, although the latter exceeds in general global diusion.) As cases like Japanese or Chinese make evident, economic or demographic importance of languages is clearly not decisive for their degree of centrality in the translation system (Heilbron 1999: 434). Instead, the main criterions of centrality are a substantial export and a favourable trade balance, as exemplied by the hyper-central English six times more translated than the central French and German with an export/import-quota of 8.0:1, according to Index (cf. French 1:1.2 and German 1:1.5).
Figuring out the Local within the Global
2.1. Eects of subsystems: Why Swedish is more translated than Dutch Apart from the overall dominance of English as SL (its average European share is approximately 60 %; PTE: 7), parameters such as geographic and/or linguistic proximity seem to favour translation, allowing regional subsystems to be discerned. This applies to the Nordic languages, for instance, which all rank remarkably high, in relation to their modest number of speakers, on the Index SL-top-list: English, French, German, Russian, Italian, Spanish, Swedish, Japanese, Danish, Latin, Dutch, Ancient Greek, Czech, Polish, Norwegian . . . , Finnish (nr. 22). . . , Icelandic (nr. 43). Swedish, with its nine million speakers, exports twice as much as Dutch, a comparable but more widely spoken language (23 million)6 . Even Danish (six million) overtakes Dutch and, when limited to literary translation, so does Norwegian (ve million). Actually, no Nordic language is surpassed by a smaller language and Icelandic (320 000) is alone among the top-50 SLs with less than a million speakers (disregarding Latin, Ancient Greek and Sanskrit). Consequently, Swedish has a far more favourable global export-import quota than Dutch (1:1.8 vs. 1:7.0) and so do Danish (1:3.1) and Norwegian (1:3.2). Another way of measuring the relative importance of the Nordic languages as SLs is through translations per 1000 native speakers: Icelandic 4.8, Swedish 4.4, Danish 3.5, Norwegian 2.9, and Finnish 1.6., against as a comparison Italian 0.9, Dutch 0.8, Polish 0.3 and Spanish 0.1. Why this extraordinary Nordic `global' presence? Possible intrinsic qualities of Nordic literature aside, it should rst be noted that half the Nordic translation export is in fact inter-Nordic (36335 of totally 73329 entries in Index). Swedish is the SL in 57 % of these instances, i.e. well above its proportion of the Nordic population (approximately 36 %), and it is the second SL (after English) in all the neighbouring Nordic countries. Danish and Norwegian both have a share just below 20 % i.e. approximately on a level with their proportion of the population 6
Since the early 1990s, Swedish has bypassed Russian and is now number six as SL, not far behind Italian and Spanish (cf. PTE: 9).
whereas Finnish and Icelandic (3.4 % and 1.7 %, respectively) are peripheral within the Nordic subsystem7 . In fact, half of all translations from Swedish are into another Nordic language (and of the remainder one third is into German). The seemingly global strength of Swedish is to a large extent local. In addition, a proportion of what appears to be `export' is in reality intra-national (domestic) translation; this is particularly true of Finnish, whence 48 % of all translations are published in Finland (mostly into Swedish). Danish, too, has a high domestic percentage, 24 % (mostly into English), and falls, with this part excluded, behind Dutch on the SL top-list (the latter has 15 % domestic translation in the Netherlands/Belgium). However, when limited to literary translation the domestic share drops dramatically (to 11 % in Finland and 6 % in Denmark). Regional bias notwithstanding, Swedish appears to be more translated than Dutch on most foreign markets. Of 18 countries examined in PTE (leaving out the Netherlands and Belgium for reasons of comparison), Swedish is among the top SLs (1-7/9) in eleven cases and Dutch in ve8 . In Germany, Austria, and Slovenia, Dutch is slightly above Swedish, but it is nowhere near the position and percentage that the latter holds with its Nordic neighbours (i.e. second position and a 9-12 % share). In France, Italy, and Spain, where neither language is listed in PTE, a check in Index shows Swedish ahead of Dutch (although Dutch seems to have been catching up since 1990). Concerning translation into Russian (Russia is not examined in PTE), Swedish clearly cuts out Dutch and the same holds true also for non-European TLs like Arabic, Farsi, Japanese, and Chinese. Sometimes the dierence is striking; witness 103 literary translations from Swedish into each of Chinese and Arabic against 12 and 3, respectively, from Dutch. The Swedish superiority is evident also in their mutual exchange: Index lists 1254 translations 7 An earlier description of the Nordic translation system (Ringmar 2008: 168) included the group hyper-peripheral languages (Faroese, Inuktitut, Lappish), from which the translation ows are so small (0.10.2 % of the total) that they hardly make a part of the system. 8 The only PTE-lists that include Dutch while excluding Swedish are Germanand French-speaking Switzerland, both with insignicant numbers (PTE: 160f.).
Figuring out the Local within the Global
from Swedish into Dutch against 567 in the opposite direction (1028 vs. 396 when limited to literary translation). The inter-Scandinavian market may be assumed to serve as a stepping stone, where Swedish literature, by successful transplants into Danish or Norwegian, can prove its ability to reach foreign (although culturally and linguistically close) audiences. Translations thus breed translations. Examples abound of Swedish works of literature that have begun their international trajectory in Denmark, from Selma Lagerl of's G osta Berlings saga of which a rst translation into Danish in 1891 was followed by on into German, etc. to Stieg Larsson's Millennium -trilogy, whose unparalleled international success (65 million copies sold as by 2012) started with a translation into Danish in 2005. The Scandinavian exchange is much facilitated by the fact that critics, editors and other `gate-keepers' can read literature from the other two countries in the original, although the wider public prefers to read their Scandinavian neighbours in translation. To sum up: the three Scandinavian languages form a `semi-domestic' market with approximately 20 million speakers, i.e. of comparable size with the Dutch language area in the Netherlands/Belgium. Whereas the Scandinavian market generates intensive `internal translation', the Dutch market (obviously) does not and this dierence can partly explain why the Scandinavian languages outperform Dutch on the `global' SL-list. The Scandinavian/Nordic case thus shows how an analysis of the global translation system may be informed by `localising' the statistics. The structures and wider implications of such regional subsystems Slavic, Iberian or Latin-American, say ought to be investigated further, internally as well as externally in relation to other subsystems (cf. Cieszy nska and Pie ta 2010: 13).
2.2. The role of ideology in subsystems Given the geographical and linguistic proximity of the three Scandinavian languages (and 200 years of peaceful relations), their cooperation and intensive exchange translational and other is not surprising. Underpinned by an important institutional framework, the Nordic www.lusosoa.net
subsystem has furthermore generated `epiphenomenal' translations between its peripheries, Finland and Iceland, far beyond what their scant `real-world' contacts would suggest (cf. Ringmar 2008: 172.). Compare, for instance, the 30 Finnish-language novels that exist in Icelandic to the nine Polish (of which only one translated after 1950), three Romanian, two Hungarian, and one Estonian9 . In addition, Icelandic comes as approximately number 18 among TLs for Finnish-language literature, ahead of Chinese, Japanese, Greek, Portuguese, Romanian, etc. Most (if not all) translations between the Nordic peripheries have received support from a program promoting inter-Nordic translation (since 1975). Although mostly covering only a part of the translation cost, this support has no doubt been sucient to tip the balance in several cases (cf. Ringmar 2008: 176). It is thus by connecting its peripheries that the capacity of the Nordic ideology to `inuence reality' becomes particularly evident. In the case of Finland, the country also partakes in a Finno-Ugrian imagined community (Anderson 1983) with consequences for translation ows. In contrast to her `natural' ties with Estonia both a geographical and a linguistic neighbour Finland's substantial translation exchange with the geographically and linguistically distant Hungary has depended mainly, if not solely, on a Finno-Ugrian ideological impetus. This ideology has drawn some of its force from a rejection of geographical neighbours (especially in the interwar period); in Finland vis-a-vis Russia and (less pronounced) Sweden, and for Hungary in relation to her Slavic neighbours and Romania, in the wake of the Treaty of Trianon (on Finno-Hungarian literary exchange, see Varpio and Nagy 1990). The eects are still discernable insofar that Estonia and Hungary are the only markets where Finnish as SL outperforms Danish and Norwegian (although the lead in Hungary is narrow; cf. PTE: 56). Otherwise, the internal hierarchy of the Nordic subsystem is replicated externally. The hyper-central Swedish is everywhere more translated than the central Danish and Norwegian, which, in turn, are well ahead of the peripheral Finnish and Icelandic: In comparison with other 9 The fact that Poles have been by far the most numerous immigrant group in Iceland since the 1990s has not led to any increase in translation from Polish into Icelandic.
Figuring out the Local within the Global
languages of the European North, Finnish is the least translated (PTE: 59). A comparison with Danish and Norwegian roughly equal in numbers of speakers will highlight the isolation of Finnish behind the language curtain (Laitinen 1964). Whereas the former two are part of the large Scandinavian `semi-domestic' market and, in addition, benet from linguistic anity with German and English, the only relevant close relation of Finnish is Estonian (1.1 million speakers). Seen from the Greenwich Meridian of literature (Casanova 2002:12; Casanova 2005: 75), Danish or Norwegian may seem as peripheral as Finnish, but their `peripheral plight' is light in comparison and their access to foreign markets much more straight-forward (cf. Hekkanen 2009: 3). In this perspective, the choice of the Danish poet Adam Oehlenschl ager (17791850) as an example of a great writer locked up in the cage of a langue miniature (miniature language; Casanova 2002: 14), is open to question10 . Given the conditions of the time, Oehlenschl ager had considerable impact outside Denmark, especially in the other Nordic countries and in Germany, and he was translated into French and English as well. He produced, furthermore, original writing also in German, being a late ospring of a Danish-German bilingual culture that ourished in the 18th century, later to be suppressed and discredited by the monolingual nation-state (Blodorn 2004: 22.; cf. also Paul 1997: 193 and Dollerup 1997: 49). Likewise, according to Casanova (2002: 14), the important Portuguese-language novelists Eca de Queiros (1845-1900) and Machado de Assis (1839-1908) have remained practically unknown in l'univers litteraire international. Be that as it may, they have at least been translated (Index renders 185 and 91 entries, respectively). As a comparison, Volter Kilpi's (18741939) monumental Alastalon salissa (In the hall of Alastalo, 1933) a Finnish counterpart to Joyce's Ulysses and Proust's A la recherche du temps perdu is as its author practically unknown abroad. The only existing translation was a long time coming. Even in the 1930s, Kilpi engaged (at his own expense) the 10
Casanova's reference on Oehlenshl ager's predicament is a novel by the Danish writer Henrik Stangerup from 1985, Det er svĂŚrt at dĂ¸ i Dieppe [French translation: Le Seducteur ou Il est dicile de mourir a Dieppe ; English: The Seducer: It is Hard to Die in Dieppe ].
prolic bilingual poet Elmer Diktonius to produce a Swedish version, but the task turned out a nightmare to Diktonius and the translation remained a torso (Donner 2007: 328.); one of the most drawn-out nonevents of the history of translation into Swedish (Zilliacus, no year; my translation). Eventually, in 1997, it was translated by another FinlandSwede, Thomas Warburton (who, as it happens, also translated Ulysses into Swedish in 1946). So while Oehlenschlager, Eca de Queiros and Machado de Assis have, to some extent at least, been spread and read abroad (though perhaps not by la rive gauche ), Kilpi has indeed been locked up in the Finnish `linguistic cage'. The dierence is not negligible. The position of Finnish in the global translation market place is in fact more akin to the one of `miniscule' Icelandic11 . For Finnish and Icelandic alike, the dearth of translators and other polyglottes litteraires has been a formidable hurdle in the spread of their literature. Schooleld, who investigated the North-American reception of literature from Finland (summarised as a sad story), explains the relative dominance of Swedish-language writers: competent translators of Finnish are rare as hen's teeth, as over against the abundance of excellent professional translators from Swedish (Schooleld 1994: 43)12 . In the same vein, the Icelandic writer Halld or Laxness (19021998) Nobel laureate 1955 sums up 50 years of eorts to `reach out in the world': The mere diculties of nding translators to work from a smallcommunity language are disheartening. Three-quarters of the roughly forty languages and countries where my books are published have no facilities for getting the texts translated from the original. (Laxness 1971: 162) 11
In spite of its feeble number of speakers, Icelandic enjoys a long-standing prestige based on its medieval literature (the Edda poetry, the Sagas, etc.), which is still legible to Icelanders, due to the well-preserved archaic structure of the modern language. The closest relative of Icelandic is Faroese (app. 50000 speakers). 12 Arguably, the only Finnish-language writer to have reached international renown is Mika Waltari (190879), who did this by writing on `un-Finnish' topics in a `translatable' style (as e.g. in Sinuhe the Egyptian ), and by accepting abbreviated secondary and tertiary translations. For many, if not most, relevant TLs (e.g. Spanish and Portuguese), Waltari remains by far the number one Finnish-language writer (cf. Schooleld 1994: 32 on the reception of Waltari in the US).
Figuring out the Local within the Global
In view of the obstacles facing export of Finnish or Icelandic literature, frequent Dutch concerns about being a `minor' language/country, whose cosmopolites isoles observe the world without being seen in return (Heilbron 1996: 347; cf. Voogel and Heilbron 2012), could seem uncalled for. The Dutch predicament as a `smallish' language surrounded by more powerful neighbours may be sincerely felt, however. Again, it can be revealing to compare with the position of Swedish, which is a small language with even smaller neighbours and, consequently, the hub of a regional subsystem (which Dutch is not).
3. Indirect translation and systemic hierarchies As suggested above, ITr aligns with linguistic hierarchies and it may be examined as a juncture where systematic relationships and historically determined norms intersect and correlate (Toury 1995: 130; Toury 2012: 162). This implies i.e. in the typical triad that the intermediate text will be in a central language, whereas the original SL (and often the end TL) is peripheral, as exemplied by early-modern translations into German via French (e.g. English > French > German). According to Roche (2001: 160), there is a single instance from the period known to run counter to this hierarchy (i.e. from English into French via German), in comparison with some 120 translations via French into German in the bibliography of Graeber and Roche (1988). Similarly, within the Nordic subsystem, the central languages Swedish and Danish mediate to and from the peripheral Finnish and Icelandic, respectively (Ringmar 2008); witness furthermore the central position of Russian within the Soviet system (Zaborov 2011; cf. also Witt 2013). ITr is not always caused by a lack of knowledge in certain SLs (English in 18th century Germany, say), but sometimes rather prompted by the prestige of the meditating language and its literary models (Graeber & Roche 1988: 55; cf. Zaborov 2011: 2067). The move from indirect to direct translation may, consequently, be motivated by a rise in prestige of the original language and its literature (cf. Toury 1995: 135-43 for translation into Hebrew; Graeber 2004: 97f. and Roche 2001: 282f. for German). In fact, translation via French was partly a way to make www.lusosoa.net
English literature seem (initially) less foreign to 18th century German audiences, and sometimes the combined use of English originals and French translations as STs served the same purpose (cf. Kittel 1991: 25; Graber 2004: 104). As indicated above, the rst step of an ITr-chain will normally ascend in the hierarchy, i.e. in a direction that often correlates with acceptable (`free') translation, as emblematically demonstrated by the notorious French belles indeles (cf. Stackelberg 1984: 232; Stackelberg 1988; Albrecht 1998: 7683, 143.; Roche 2001: 40., 123.) or by domesticating translations into English today (Venuti 1995: 17 and passim ; Munday 2008: 52; Bellos 2011: 306)13 . According to Dollerup, domestication and ITr are the price peripheries have to pay in order to reach the centre, but [h]opefully, some traces of the original work will still be there (Dollerup 1997: 55), and Casanova similarly underlines the customs duty paid by peripheral literature (in the form of disgurations) before it is admitted into the world literary space (Casanova 2002: 20; cf. Sapiro 2012: 24). Consequently, ITr will be seen as less of a `problem' in the centre, where adequate (`faithful') rendering of peripheral literature is not a priority. So far, research on ITr has had a historical slant (witness, e.g., the Gottingen-project and Toury 1995), which may have reinforced the widespread assumption that it has become much less common (Heilbron 1999: 436) or, even, that it is totally out of the question today, as Balzamo puts it (Balzamo 2012: 136; my translation). This is not necessarily the case, however. Admittedly, `globalisation' has led to new patterns of contacts and to enhanced linguistic competences, establishing direct connection between an increasing number of languages (Spanish and Finnish, say). This development has not been examined systematically for any given TL (to the best of my knowledge), although there are case studies on language pairs like Chinese into Dutch (Heijins 2003), 13
A striking example of English domestication is the translation of V ain o Linna's (1920-92) Tuntematon sotilas from 1954, presumably the most important novel ever written in Finnish (at least socially). Its English translation (The Unknown Soldier, 1957) was to a large extent rewritten (i.e. shortened and disgured) by English and American editors (cf. Ringmar 1998; Hekkanen 2009: 15). It is hardly a coincidence that precisely a Finnish work suers such maltreatment (I know of no Scandinavian cases of the same amplitude in modern times).
Figuring out the Local within the Global
Polish into Portuguese (Pie ta 2012), Finnish-Icelandic (Ringmar 2008); cf. also concerning Brazil, Pragana Dantas and Perrusi (2012: 187) and for Russia, Zaborov (2011), and Catalan, Coll-Vinent (1998)14 . Still, direct translation having become a genuine option does not exclude recurrence to ITr, of course, as demonstrated by recent ITr into Swedish even of literature in well-known original languages like Italian (Ringmar 2007: 7). In fact, globalisation may also lead to an increased need for ITr in the wake of phenomena like, for instance, a sudden world-wide interest in Nordic crime ction, where translators cannot be expected to materialise for all requested language combinations (particularly not for SLs from the Nordic periphery). The two Chinese translations of the Icelandic crime ction writer Arnaldur Indridason (both published in 2008), were thus made indirectly via English. This is what to expect, as the insignicant ow of translations from Icelandic into Chinese (an average of approximately one novel a decade since WWII) could hardly sustain a Chinese translator with Icelandic as main SL. Nevertheless, things have changed since Laxness complained that three-quarters of roughly forty languages (. . . ) have no facilities for getting the texts translated from the [Icelandic] original (Laxness 1971: 162)15 . Arnaldur Indridason also translated into roughly forty languages could probably inverse the relation: direct translation into three-quarters of the languages concerned, against one quarter indirect. A possible increase in direct connections does not imply that linguistic hierarchies have become irrelevant, however. The dierent treatment 14 In the case of Icelandic, direct translation was customary from 56 modern SLs at the beginning of the 20th century: the three Scandinavian languages, English, German and, to some extent, French (Larsen 2006: 64). Today, at least Russian, Spanish, Italian, Portuguese, Greek, and Finnish may be added to the list. 15 It was a particular concern of Laxness's that nobody in West-Germany was capable of translating from Icelandic (and only one translator in GDR): When, in my innumerable German editions, it says on the title-page that the books are translated from the Icelandic, this should read: `from Icelandic via Swedish and Danish ' (1971: 163). The situation has improved since and German is foremost in the world (with 41 names) on a recent listing of translators from Icelandic (http://www.sagenhaftesisland.is/islenskar-bokmenntir/thydingarstyrkir/; available via Rith ofundasamband Islands (The Writers' Union of Iceland).
of Dutch and Afrikaans literature in Swedish is a case in point. Marlene van Niekerk's novel Agaat, a recent example, was rst published in Afrikaans in 2004 and then translated into English in 2007, whence it has been translated into several languages, among them Swedish (2012). In fact, translation via English seems to be the rule for Afrikaans literature in Swedish (and presumably in several other comparable TLs), whereas direct translation from Dutch into Swedish has long been selfevident. Given the close linguistic anity between Dutch and Afrikaans, this dierence cannot solely be a matter of (lacking) linguistic competences, but rather a question of what is norm(al) and acceptable in the target culture (and, perhaps, in the source culture). In the case of a selftranslator like Andre Brink, of whom some 15 novels have appeared in Swedish, the existence of an Afrikaans original (often published before the English version) is completely obscured and the translations are simply presented as made from the English original. This is regrettable, not least since the choice to write in Afrikaans had considerable political signicance for Brink and other anti-apartheid writers in the 1960s, a generation known as die sestigers (Brink 1983: 93-115). Similarly, there are cases where French-Canadian literature has been not only translated via English into Swedish, but also presented as originally written in English (Alvstad 2009: 91). Likewise, Ukrainian or Belorussian writers like Vasil' Bykaw, who have mostly been translated via Russian in the West, are often assumed to write in, or even to be, Russian (H akanson 2012: 133). As the above examples indicate, the relation between domestic minority status and ITr abroad, seems to be a eld which invites further research.
3.1. Systemic relevance of secondary vs. tertiary translation The tendency to suppress information on ITr is in itself revealing of a currently prevailing cultural norm, ascribing uppermost value to translating from the original (Toury 1988: 139; italics original). Actually, concealing ITr seems to be in the interest of `everyone' involved, including the publisher and the translator, to whose cultural capital ITr may be detrimental (anathema to the professionals) (Durrani 2004: www.clepul.eu
Figuring out the Local within the Global
48); witness the need some translators feel to justify their performing an ITr, e.g. by referring to the original author's involvement in the intermediate translation (cf. Ringmar 2007: 11). In the case of Agaat, its Swedish translator claimed almost to have declined the oer because it implied ITr (interview in F orfattaren 2/2012; my translation). Even the reader, who might prefer to suppress the notion of reading a translation altogether (and thus cherishing the illusion of gaining access to the original text), may nd information on ITr an additional `killjoy'. This concealment of ITr is transmitted to literary criticism and bibliographies, where direct translation is seen as the `natural' state of aairs and often taken for granted. Even in contexts where it cannot be wholly disregarded, there is still a tendency to downplay the possibility of ITr. Concerning Icelandic literature in Russian, for instance, Mitchell maintains that it is possible that a few of these translations have been made via a third language, but this is an exception and not the rule (Mitchell 1971: 150) [my translation], without providing any further proofs. In fact, several post-war Russian translators of Icelandic literature did not know the original language and translated via Scandinavian languages (in spite of frequent paratextual claims to directness)16 . The repression of an intermediary link is replicated when ITr is taken by default to imply secondary translation (i.e. a chain with one intermediary text), thus disregarding the possibility of tertiary translation ; witness denitions of ITr as translating via a third language (Balzamo 2012: 136), involving three languages (Dollerup 2009: 2), or: Indirect translation is translation into Language C based on a translation into Language B of a source text in Language A (Landers 2001: 130). Still, chains with two (or even more) mediating texts have not been rare through history, as famously illustrated by medieval translations of the Greeks into Latin via Syrian and Arabic (Pym 1998: 131; cf. also Zaborov 2011: 2068f.). According to the translator Arni Bergmann (p.c., 8 May 2007), who lived in Moscow in the 1960s, Nina Krymova, Anna Emsina, and Valentina Morozova were among translators of Icelandic literature with little or no Icelandic. This is conrmed by Morozova's substantial correspondence with Halld or Laxness (at the National library of Iceland), which is entirely in English. 16
The distinction between secondary and tertiary translation may be signicant in a systemic sense. With reference to the Nordic hierarchy, the peripheral Icelandic and Finnish are much more likely than the Scandinavian languages to be subject to tertiary translation, both as original SL and as end TL of such chains. The rst novels exchanged between the two languages were thus tertiary in both directions: Laxness's Salka Valka, translated into Finnish in 1948, and Johannes Linnankoski's (18691913) The Song of the Blood Red Flower into Icelandic in 1924 (cf. Ringmar 2007: 7f., 2008, and 2014). Although bibliographies occasionally conrm secondary translation, the possibility of tertiary translation is, as a rule, not even considered (reecting a paratextual silence on the matter). A case study concerning the 28 existing translations of Salka Valka (Icelandic original 193132), revealed that at least six may be tertiary, wholly or partly, without any mentioning of this in the paratext (Ringmar 2014: 71). In fact, the same could apply to several other translations of Laxness's novels, not least into Soviet/Eastern European languages (Latvian, Polish, Slovenian, etc.), as these were regularly made via Russian or German versions, which, in turn, may in some instances have been translated from Scandinavian languages (despite claims to directness). Unlike secondary translation, we may assume tertiary translation to be on the wane in today's world, especially when prestige literature is involved17 . It has been practiced until recently, however, and its eects are still seen, insofar that many existing inter-peripheral translations that are still available, or even reissued, could be tertiary. Again, this is an area which awaits further (inter-systemic) research.
4. Conclusion It is a time-honoured received opinion (shared by many translation scholars) that an indirect translation will, per denition, be `worse' than a direct and, furthermore, that ITr is (blissfully) a thing of the past. Neither prejudice is true. Translations may be assessed in dierent ways, 17
Having written this, I learned about a recent translation of Salka Valka into Turkish (2010) made from the English translation from 1936, which, in turn, was based on the (shortened) Danish translation of 1934.
Figuring out the Local within the Global
and faithfulness to the original is only one aspect of quality, albeit important in the prevalent hierarchy of translational norms. ITr will continue to occur, out of necessity, of course, but also in cases where direct translation would have been a genuine option (when, for instance, publishers prefer an experienced translator from a mediating language rather than running the risk with a novice translating from the original). However, it is true that ITr will continue to be as in the past chiey a concern of (semi)peripheries. The aim of this article has been twofold. On the one hand, to examine the general concept of a `global translation system' in its local details, as exemplied by the Nordic subsystem. Secondly, the article has emphasised the relation between hierarchical systems and ITr, suggesting, among other things, that more attention should be paid to the distinction between secondary and tertiary translations and to the possible systemic implications of this distinction.
References Albrecht, J orn. 1998. Literarische Ubersetzung. Geschichte, Theorie, kulturelle Wirkung [Literary Translation. History, Theory, Cultural Inuence]. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft. Alvstad, Cecilia. 2009. A Poetics of Omissions or Omission of the Poetic? Gabrielle Roy's Bonheur d'Occasion in Swedish. Agnes Whiteld, ed. L'echo de nos classiques. Bonheur d'occasion et Two Solitudes en traduction. Ottawa: Les Editions David. 87-121. Anderson, Benedict. 1983. Imagined Communities. Reections on the Origin and Spread of Nationalism. London: Verso. Balzamo, Elena. 2012. Skrifdon och papper, brefkort, frim arken. Fyra essaer om Strindberg [Writing Utensils and Paper, Postcards, Stamps. Four Essays on Strindberg]. Stockholm: Lind & Co. Bellos, David. 2011. Is that a Fish in Your Ear? Translation and the Meaning of Everything. London: Particular Books. Blodorn, Andreas. 2004. Zwischen den Sprachen. Modelle transkultureller Literatur bei Christian Levin Sander und Adam Oehlenschlager [Between the Languages. Models of Transcultural Literature by Christian Levin Sander and Adam Oehlenschlager]. Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Brink, Andre. 1983. Mapmakers. Writing in a Stage of Siege. London/Boston: Faber and Faber. Casanova, Pascale. 1999. La Republique mondiale des lettres [The World Republic of Letters]. Paris: Seuil. Casanova, Pascale. 2002. Consecration et accumulation de capital litteraire. La traduction comme echange inegal [Consecration and Accumulation of Literary Capital]. Actes de la Recherche en Sciences Sociales 144. 7-20. Casanova, Pascale. 2005. Literature as a World. New Left Review 31. 71-90. Cieszy nska, Beata and Hanna Pie ta. 2010. Translation Studies from within the Iberian-Slavonic Perspective: Overview and Outlooks. Ibero-
Figuring out the Local within the Global
Slavica 1. 12-21. Coll-Vinent, Slvia. 1998. The French Connection. Mediated Translation into Catalan during the Interwar Period. Lawrence Venuti, ed. Translation & Minority. (Special issue of The Translator 4:2). Manchester: St. Jerome Publishing. 207-228. Dollerup, Cay. 1997. Translation as Imposition vs. Translation as Requisition. Mary Snell-Hornby et al., eds. Translation as Intercultural Communication. Selected Papers from the EST Congress Prague 1995. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company. 45-56. Dollerup, Cay. 2000. `Relay' and `Support' Translations. Andrew Chesterman et al., eds. Translation in Context. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 17-26. Dollerup, Cay. 2009. Relay and Delay in Translation. Conference paper. Accessed December 12, 2012. http://www.cay-dollerup.dk/publications.asp Donner, J orn. 2007. Diktonius. Ett liv [Diktonius. A Life]. Helsingfors: Schildts. Durrani, Osman. 2004. The Wilderness and Its Voices: Translating Schneider's Novel Schlafes Bruder . Katherine M Faull, ed. Translation and Culture. Lewisburg: Bucknell University Press. 39-57. Edstrom, Bert. 1991. The Transmitter Language Problem in Translations from Japanese into Swedish. Babel 37:1. 1-13. Frank, Armin Paul and Horst Turk. 2004. Die literarische Ubersetzung in Deutschland. Studien zu ihrer Kulturgeschichte in der Neuzeit [The Literary Translation in Germany. Studies Regarding its Cultural History in the Modern Era]. Berlin: Erich Schmidt Verlag. Gambier, Yves. 2003. Working with Relay: An Old Story and a New Challenge. Luis Perez Gonzalez, ed. Speaking in Tongues. Language across Contexts and Users. Valencia: University of Valencia Press. 4766. Graeber, Wilhelm. 2004. `Englische Ubersetzer aus dem Franzosis chen'. Eine Forschungsbilanz der Ubersetzungen aus zweiter Hand [English Translators from French. A Summary of Research on Second-hand Translation]. Armin Paul Frank and Horst Turk, ed. Die literarische Ubersetzung in Deutschland. Studien zu ihrer Kulturgeschichte in der Neuzeit [The Literary Translation in Germany. Studies Regarding its www.lusosoa.net
Cultural History in the Modern Era]. Berlin: Erich Schmidt Verlag. 93107. Graeber, Wilhelm and Genevieve Roche. 1988. Englische Literatur des 17. und 18. Jahrhunderts in franzosischer Ubersetzung und th deutscher Weiter ubersetzung. [English Literature of the 17 and 18th Centuries in French Translation and German Secondary Translation]. T ubingen: Niemayer. H akanson, Nils. 2012. F onstret mot oster. Rysk skonlitteratur i svensk oversattning 17972010. [The Window to the East. Russian Literature in Swedish Translation 1797-2010]. Stockholm: Ruin. He, Chengzhou. 2001. Chinese Translations of Henrik Ibsen. Perspectives. Studies in Translatology 9:3. 197-214. Heijins, Audrey. 2003. Chinese Literature in Dutch Translation. Perspectives. Studies in Translatology 11: 4. 247-253. Heilbron, Johan. 1996. Traductions et echanges culturels. Donald Broady et al., eds. Formation des elites et culture transnationale. Uppsala: ILU. 337-349. Heilbron, Johan. 1999. Towards a Sociology of Translation. Book Translations as a Cultural World-System. European Journal of Social Theory 2:4. 429-444. Heilbron, Johan. 2010. Structure and Dynamics of the World System of Translation. Paper presented at the UNESCO Symposium Translation and Cultural Mediation, 22-23/2. Accessed December 12, 2012. http://portal.unesco.org/culture/en/les/40619/12684038723Heilbron. pdf Hekkanen, Raila. 2009. Fields, Networks and Finnish Prose: A Comparison of Bourdieusian Field Theory and Actor-Network Theory in Translation Sociology. Dries de Crom, ed. Selected Papers of the CETRA Research Seminar in Translation Studies 2008. Accessed December 12, 2012. http://www2.arts.kuleuven.be/info/bestanden-div/Hekkanen.pdf Kittel, Harald. 1991. Vicissitudes of Mediation: The Case of Benjamin Franklin's Autobiography . Harald Kittel and Armin Paul Frank, eds. Interculturality and the Historical Study of Literary Translations. Berlin: Erich Schmidt. 25-35. www.clepul.eu
Figuring out the Local within the Global
Koskinen, Kaisa and Outi Paloposki. 2010. Retranslation. Yves Gambier and Luc van Doorslaer, eds. John Benjamins Handbook of Translation Studies I. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 294298. Laitinen, Kai. 1964. Tankar bakom spr akrid an. N agra synpunkter p a oversattning av nsk litteratur [Thoughts behind the Language Curtain. Some Views on Translation of Finnish Literature]. Nordisk Tidskrift 40:2. 105-114. Lambert, Jose. 2002. Models for Descriptive Research: 19761999. Saliha Paker, ed. Translations. Reshaping of Literature and Culture. Istanbul: Bogazici University Press. 195-217. Landers, Cliord E. 2001. Literary Translation. A Practical Guide. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Larsen, Svanfrdur. 2006. Af erlendri r ot [Of Foreign Origin]. Reykjavk: BokmenntafrĂŚdistofnun Haskola Islands. Laxness, Halldor. 1971. The Writer in a Small Language Community. First published in The Times Literary Supplement September 25, 1969. In Yrskygdir stadir [Overshadowed Places]. Reykjavk: Helgafell. Mitchell, Philip Marshall. 1971. Islenzkar bokmenntir erlendis. Nokkrar tolfrĂŚdilegar athuganir [Icelandic Literature Abroad. Some Statistical Remarks]. Translation Olafur J onsson. Skrnir. 144-161. Munday, Jeremy. 2008. Style and Ideology in Translation. New York/London: Routledge. Paul, Fritz. 1997. Tyskland Skandinaviens port till varldslitteraturen [Germany Scandinavia's Door to World Literature]. Bernd Henningsen et al., eds. Skandinavien och Tyskland 1800-1914 [Scandinavia and Germany 18001914]. Berlin: Jovis Verlagsb uro. 193-205. Pie ta, Hanna. 2012. Patterns in (In)directness: An Exploratory Case Study in the External History of Portuguese Translations of Polish Literature (18552010). Target 24:2. 310-337. Pragana Dantas, Marta and Artur Perrusi. 2012. Le reclassement d'une tradition: La traduction du francais dans le marche editorial bresilien. Gisele Sapiro, ed. 2012. Traduire la litterature et les sciences humaines. Conditions et obstacles [Translating Literature and the Humanities. Conditions and Obstacles]. Paris: Ministere de la Culture et de la Communication. 163-197. www.lusosoa.net
PTE = Publishing Translations in Europe Trends 19902005 (no year of publishing/name of authors). Accessed November-December 2012. http://portal.unesco.org/pv_obj_cache/pv_obj_id_2A666434EBFE EA69AC8A192771899680D8F51E00/lename/Translation+trends+199 0_2005_Dec+2010.pdf Pym, Anthony. 1998. Method in Translation History. Manchester: St Jerome. Pym, Anthony. 2011. Translation Research Terms: A Tentative Glossary for Moments of Perplexity and Dispute. Anthony Pym, ed. Translation Research Projects 3. Tarragona: Intercultural Studies Group. 75-110. Ringmar, Martin. 1998. Att oversatta oversattningar [Translating Translations]. Nordisk tidskrift 74:4. 343-364. Ringmar, Martin. 2007. `Roundabout Routes'. Some Remarks on Indirect Translations. Francis Mus, ed. Selected Papers of the CETRA Research Seminar in Translation Studies 2006. Accessed December 12, 2012. http://www.kuleuven.be/cetra/papers/Papers2006/RINGMAR.pdf Ringmar, Martin. 2008. Von indirekten zu direkten Beziehungen im nnisch-isl andischen Literaturaustausch [From Indirect to Direct Relations in Finnish-Icelandic Literary Exchange]. Trans-kom. Zeitschrift f ur Translationswissenschaft und Fachkommunikation 1:2. 164179. Accessed December 12, 2012. http://www.transkom.eu/bd01nr02/transkom_01_02_02_Ringmar_ Literaturbeziehungen.20081218.pdf Ringmar, Martin. 2012. Relay Translation. Yves Gambier and Luc van Doorslaer, eds. John Benjamins Handbook of Translation Studies III. Amsterdam / Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 154-157. Ringmar, Martin. 2014. The Vicissitudes of (After-)life. Salka Valka adur Eysteinsson et in the Nordic Translation System 1934-2008. Astr al., eds. Nordic Responses. Translation, History, Literary Culture. Oslo: Novus Press. 69-87. Roche, Genevieve. 2001. Les traductions-relais en Allemagne au XVIIIe siecle [Relay Translation in Germany in the 18th Century]. Paris: CNRS Editions. www.clepul.eu
Figuring out the Local within the Global
Sapiro, Gisele. 2012. Preambule. Les raisons de traduire [Introduction. Reasons for translating]. Gisele Sapiro, ed. Traduire la litterature et les sciences humaines. Conditions et obstacles [Translating Literature and the Humanities. Conditions and Obstacles]. Paris: Ministere de la Culture et de la Communication. 15-24. Schooleld, Georg C. 1994. Reception of Finnish Literature in North America: A Sad Story. Keijo Virtanen et al., eds. Finnish Literature in North America. Turku: Institute of History, Turku University. 13-50. Simeoni, Daniel. 2008. Norms and the State. Anthony Pym et al., eds. Beyond Descriptive Translation Studies. Investigations in Homage to Gideon Toury. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 329-341. Stackelberg, J urgen von. 1984. Ubersetzungen aus zweiter Hand. Rezeptionsvorgange in der europaischen Literatur vom 14. bis zum 18. Jahrhundert [Second-hand Translations. Procedures of Reception in European Literature from the 14th to the 18th century]. Berlin/New York: Walter de Gruyter. Stackelberg, J urgen von. 1988. Einleitung [Introduction]. Wilhelm Graeber and Genevieve Roche. Englische Literatur des 17. und 18. Jahrhundert in franzosischer Ubersetzung und deutscher Weiter ubersetth th zung. [English Literature of the 17 and 18 Centuries in French Translation and German Secondary Translation]. T ubingen: Niemayer. 7-21. St. Andre, James. 2009. Relay. Mona Baker and Gabriela Saldanha, eds. Routledge Encyclopedia of Translation Studies. Second Edition. London/New York: Routledge. 230-232. Swaan, Abram de. 1993. The Emergent World Language System: An Introduction. International Political Science Review 14:3. 219-226. Swaan, Abram de. 2001. Words of the World. The Global Language System. Cambridge: Polity. Swartz, David. 1997. Culture & Power. The Sociology of Pierre Bourdieu. Chicago/London: The University of Chicago Press. Toury, Gideon. 1988. Translating English Literature via German and Vice Versa. A Symptomatic Reversal in the History of Modern He brew Literature. Harald Kittel, ed. Die literarische Ubersetzung. Stand und Perspektiven ihrer Erforschung. Berlin: Erich Schmidt. 139-157. Toury, Gideon. 1995. Descriptive Translation Studies and beyond. Amsterdam-Philadelphia: John Benjamins. www.lusosoa.net
Toury, Gideon. 2012. Descriptive Translation Studies and beyond. Revised edition. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Varpio, Yrjo and Lajos Szopori Nagy. 1990. Suomen ja Unkarin kirjalliset suhteet vuosina 1920-1986 [The Literary Connections between Finland and Hungary 19201986]. Helsinki: SKL. Venuti, Lawrence. 1995. The Translator's Invisibility A History of Translation. London/New York: Routledge. Voogel, Marjolijn and Johan Heilbron. 2012. Comment faire decouvrir une litterature inconnue? Les traductions du neerlandais en France [How Make Known an Unknown Literature? Translations from Dutch in France]. Gisele Sapiro, ed. Traduire la litterature et les sciences humaines. Conditions et obstacles [Translating Literature and the Humanities. Conditions and Obstacles]. Paris: Ministere de la Culture et de la Communication. 233-247. Witt, Susanna. 2013. The Shorthand of Empire. Podstrochnik Practices and the Making of Soviet Literature. Ab Imperio 3. 155190. Zaborov, Petr. 2011. Die Zwischen ubersetzung in der Geschichte der russischen Literatur [The Intermediate Translation in the History of the Russian Literature]. Harald Kittel et al., eds. Ubersetzung. Translation. Traduction (HSK 26:3). Berlin/Boston: Walter de Gruyter. 2066-2073. Zilliacus, Clas. No year. Elmer Diktonius. Svenskt overs attarlexikon [Swedish Translators' Biography]. Accessed July 10, 2013. http://www.oversattarlexikon.se/artiklar/Elmer_Diktonius
Europe's Conquest of the Russian Novel: The Pivotal Role of France and Germany Pieter Boulogne University of Leuven / Ghent University firstname.lastname@example.org
Abstract This article sheds a light on the dynamics underlying the European discovery of the 19th century Russian novelists in general and Dostoevsky in particular, diering between the leading and the following literary polysystems. It appears that in its critical aspect, the plural European reception of Dostoevsky, although initiated in Germany, was dominated by the French critic Vog ue, who in the mid-1880s promoted the Russian novel as an antidote against amoral French naturalism. His critiques popularized Dostoevsky in whole Europe, but not in every sense: whereas the writer's philanthropy was admired, a consensus existed that some of his features and works left much to be desired. In line with this critical selectiveness, Dostoevsky's most successful German and French translators, Henckel and Halperine-Kaminsky, made, important micro-textual and macro-structural shifts: the German translation Raskolnikow (1882) presents a softened image of Dostoevsky's satire on the Germans, and the French translations L'esprit souterrain (1886) and Les freres Karamazov (1888) radically modify the intrigue of the corresponding Russian source texts. It is argued that because these inadequate translations served as source texts for a variety of European second hand translations, the so-called invasion of Europe by the Russian novel can be better understood as Europe's annexation of the Russian novel.
Keywords World literature, Russian literature, Literary reception, Descriptive Translation Studies, Polysystem theory, Indirect translation, Adaptation, Dostoevsky, Vog ue, Henckel, Halperine-Kaminsky.
1. Introduction: the Russian novel's conquest of Europe Russian novels are especially well represented in today's canon of world literature. However, during the greater part of the 19th century, if works by Russian novelists were at all discussed by Europe's leading critics, they were considered a poor imitation of Western models. Russian literature of the 1800s was an internal aair of Russia. Turgenev, considered by many to be a Frenchman in Russian disguise, was the only exception to this rule, whereas his literary compatriots followed this rule. This is even true for Dostoevsky, who today might well be among the most read, quoted and inuential writers of all time1 . Although Dostoevsky had lived several years in Western Europe, outside of Russia he was largely ignored during his lifetime. Before his death only one attempt was made to familiarize Europe's readership with him through a book translation: in 1864 in Leipzig, an anonymous German translation was produced of his Notes from the Dead House. Symptomatically, it turned out to be a commercial disaster: the lack of success forced the publishing house to sell more than one hundred issues of Aus dem Todten Hause as scrap paper (Zabel 1884: 333). The idea that the pantheon of European literatures could manage perfectly without Dostoevsky quickly changed after his death. Less than a decade afterwards he would be brought worldwide popularity, which is all the more important because his work was there from the outset of Europe's recognition of Russian realist literature as a whole. Through the door that was opened for him Tolstoy, Tchekhov, Andreyev and many other compatriots, some of them already forgotten, would march upon Europe's centre stage. This sudden discovery of Russian literature 1
According to Unesco's Index Translationum, Dostoevsky is the sixteenth most translated writer in the world. See: http://www.unesco.org/xtrans/bsstatexp.aspx? crit1L=5&nTyp=min&topN=50.
Europe's Conquest of the Russian Novel
was so erce, that from the very beginning military terms were used to describe it: by the end of the 19th century it had become common place to imagine the invasion of French literature by the Russians as their revenge for Napoleon's 1812 siege of Moscow (Hemmings 1950b: 1). The association of the Russian literary vogue with the Napoleonic war is perchance inspired by the fact that one of the novels that played a crucial role in this breakthrough was War and Peace. Its epilogue contains a prolix essay in philosophy of history, in which Tolstoy inquires how historical processes occur. He concludes that knowing the precise cause of wars and revolutions should be considered an impossibility. It is beyond a doubt that this applies mutatis mutandis to cultural history as well. Which forces moved the Russian novelists, Dostoevsky in forefront, to invade Germany and France, occupy the readers' minds and initiate a literary revolution in the receiving cultures is not entirely clear. It is, however, possible to outline a number of political, social, literary and all too often neglected translational conditions that have contributed to the Russian novel's conquest of Europe. This will be accomplished in two parts. The rst part deals with the literatures which took the lead, namely the German and French polysystems, and the second part with the literatures that jumped on the bandwagon, i.e. virtually all other European polysystems.
2. The leading literatures 2.1. The critics Because of the limited diusion of the Russian language, in order to acquire prestige in Europe, Russian literature obviously rst had to be translated. However, translations usually do not bring along much prestige for the translated author. According to Even-Zohar (1990: 47), prestige only comes if the receiving literary polysystem is either young, peripherally positioned or in crisis. The French and German literary polysystems of the 1880s were certainly neither young nor peripheral, but they were most denitely in crisis. Dostoevsky, whose intent was to edify, but whose writing interests revolved around a society rampant with moral chaos, is often said to be one of the most paradoxical novelists www.lusosoa.net
that Russian civilization has produced. As the past century has shown, the diversity and contradictions that characterize his oeuvre make him extremely vulnerable for any attempt of annexation by cultural and ideological movements, such as socialism, Catholicism, Nietzscheanism, existentialism and Buddhism to name just a few. In that respect he was an ideal candidate to be used as a response to the literary crisis. This task was reserved for the literary critics. In 1882 in Leipzig, the rst German translation of Crime and Punishment was published under the title Raskolnikow. Although the publisher was Wilhelm Friedrich, it was actually the translator, Wilhelm Henckel, who had put his money at stake. Because he could not nd a publishing house eager to bring out his translation, he convinced Friedrich to publish it at his own expense all possible prots would be split. Henckel not only translated and funded Raskolnikow, he also started up a largescale promotion campaign. As a critic, he published an article in Das Magazin f ur die Literatur des In- und Auslandes in which he stressed Dostoevsky's philanthropic and psychological value. More importantly, he sent more than a hundred copies of his translation to contemporary progressive writers and critics, including Heyse, Grosse, Freytag, Ebers and Brandes all whom he thought would be capable to attract the German reader to Dostoevsky (see Moe 1981: 110). Rave reviews soon appeared in widely read social-democratic and other journals. Accoding to Hoefert (1974: ix) Henckel's plan to popularise Dostoevsky was fullled by the movement of the so-called German naturalists: a new generation of young men of letters who became fed up with the traditional German ne writing that gloried the German empire. They hungered for a new kind of literature, a literature that would pay genuine attention to the social excrescences of Bismarck's internal policy, that in the newly industrialized Germany were becoming more visible each day. Henckel took advantage of their desire for a new literary model by suggesting a humanist version of Crime and Punishment, which, in the literary circles of Leipzig, Berlin and Frankfurt, resulted in an increased interest for Dostoevsky in particular and Russian literature overall. Toward the mid-1880s this interest would create a generalized Russian hype thanks to the back-up of a similar, but nonetheless dierent phenomenon that took place almost concurrently in Paris. www.clepul.eu
Europe's Conquest of the Russian Novel
One of the recipients of Henckel's Raskolnikow was Emile Zola, who was asked to take the pulse of the French literary market about the possibility of bringing out a French version of Crime and Punishment. In the spring of 1884 Zola answered pessimistically: J'ai trouve une grande repugnance chez les editeurs francais. (. . . ) Ils disent que les traductions ne se vendent pas en France, ce qui est vrai. [The French publishers have responded to me with repulsion. (. . . ) They say that translations are not sold in France, which is true.] (Loew 1991: 78). Where Zola failed to inspire any enthusiasm for Dostoevsky, others succeeded. Notwithstanding the French repugnance to literature from abroad, in the very same year, 1884, the publishing house Plon released Le crime et le chatiment. The unequalled success of this translation was to a large extent the merit of one single critic: the eloquent Viscount Eugene-Melchior de Vog ue, who had taken advantage of his long residence in Russia as a diplomat to familiarize himself with Russian literature. As he himself alluded, Vog ue (1886a: viii) had two motives to popularize Dostoevsky among the French: one political and one literary. First, on a political level, the position of France vis-a-vis Russia had changed drastically in consequence of the Franco-Prussian War of 1870. Vog ue suggested consolidating the international alliance between France and Russia, its traditional enemy, by a transfer of cultural goods between the two nations. Second, and more importantly, he supported the translation of Crime and Punishment not so much because he admired Dostoevsky, but rather because he despised Zola. Similar to many readers and critics of his age, Vog ue blamed the loss of prestige of French literature, which was perceived as a crisis, on the dogmatic amoral naturalism that held Paris' literary scene in its grasp: le realism devient odieux des qu'il cesse d'etre charitable [realism becomes hateful when it stops being charitable] (Vog ue 1886: xxiv). He judged that in order to be guarded from further decline, the French literature needed a fundamental correction, that could be provided by Russian novelists in general and Dostoevsky in particular: they too wrote in a realistic way, but in their best works the reader could always feel a touch of charity. Vog ue (1886: lv) explicitly called upon his compatriots to embrace the author of Le crime et le chatiment, who in his eyes was a brilliant psychologist and philanthropist, as a new literary model. His plan worked: in the midwww.lusosoa.net
1880s, literary circles throughout Paris, especially the generation that previously had gushed about naturalism, raved over the Russians and, as a side-eect, over the messenger too. Vog ue's compilation of essays Le roman russe became a worldwide bestseller, which would bring him membership in the Academie francaise. Near the turn of the century, when chauvinist attacks against his critiques became sharper, Vog ue would reluctantly regret the unrestrained force of the Russian hype he himself had created, but by that time the canonization of Dostoevsky was already irreversible (Hemmings 1950b: 77-81).
2.2. The translations If, in less than a decade's time, Dostoevsky was pulled out of obscurity into the middle of the German and French literary polysystems, it was because some critics presented him as an engage whose philanthropy could avert the German and French literary crisis. However, this does not mean that all aspects and all works of his oeuvre were highly appreciated. Quite the reverse: the leading German and French critics agreed that the champion of the humiliated and insulted suered from prolixity, that his style lacked elegance, and that after Crime and Punishment, especially in The Brothers Karamazov, his art fell into decline. At the same time, hardly anyone seemed genuinely interested in his well-developed sense of humour, his religious-philosophical aspirations or his polyphonic style. Given this quite selective appreciation, it is no surprise to notice that the rst wave of German and French Dostoevsky-translations contain spectacular shifts vis-a-vis the corresponding Russian source texts, both on a micro-textual and on a macro-structural level. Generally speaking, when compared to the French translators of Dostoevsky, the German ones were more concerned about macro-structural adequacy. Nonetheless, some of the German Dostoevsky-translations too were seriously abridged. For instance, in Erniedrigte und Beleidigte (1890) several chapters of the original, The Humiliated and Insulted, were simply omitted. The fact that the translational norm of macro-structural adequacy was not always shared by the whole of the receiving German community, is demonstrated in a review that followed the publication of www.clepul.eu
Europe's Conquest of the Russian Novel
Die Br uder Karamaso. The critic in question, Waldm uller, regretted that the translation of such a prolix novel was not abridged, although he admitted that Der Uebersetzer ware aber dabei schwerlich im Stande gewesen, es allen recht zu machen [the translator would not have been able to do it right] (Waldm uller 1885: 568). On a micro-textual level, the rst German Dostoevsky-translations were in some respect blatantly targeted toward acceptability, at the cost of pragmatic equivalence. The most striking shifts concern Dostoevsky's satire on the Germans as a nation, of which the most biting traces were removed. For instance the uproarious scene in which the Russian student Raskolnikov eye-witnesses a complaint of a German histrionic brothel-keeper in the police station, loses much of its wit in Raskolnikow (1882). On the one hand, this removal was the consequence of the technical diculties of translating Dostoevsky's satire on the Germans, which to a large extent is based on a sophisticated use of heterolingualism (see Boulogne 2012). On the other, evidence exists that it was also the well-thought out agenda of the translator to erase, or at least soften it: in the preface of his Raskolnikow, Henckel apologizes that der Verfasser die Personen des Romans, welche deutsche Namen tragen, konsequent moglichst lacherlich oder Abscheu erweckend geschildert hat [the author has depicted the novel's characters bearing German names systematically ridiculous or abhorrent] (Henckel 1882: vii-viii), whereupon he insures the reader that in order to parry the oence he had manches zu Grelle gemildert und manches ganz fortgelassen [softened some things and left out others]. For the most productive French translator of Dostoevsky, Ely Halperine-Kaminsky, macro-structural adequacy was not a concern at all. His most successful translations, L'esprit souterrain (1886) and Les freres Karamazov (1888), both written in collaboration with the obscure poet Charles Morice, perfectly link up with the classicist tradition of the belles indeles. Both cases are equally spectacular. Whereas L'esprit souterrain for a longtime was considered a translation of Dostoevsky's philosophical Notes from the Underground (1864), it is actually an amalgam of an abridged version of this work with the pre-Siberian, magical-sentimental story The Landlady (1847). These two works, although radically dierent in style and content, are represented as two parts of a single novel in L'esprit souterrain (1886). Each part is named www.lusosoa.net
after the female protagonist of the dierent source texts: Lisa and Katia. To disguise the ssured nature of their translation, HalperineKaminsky and Morice fused the main characters of the respective source texts into one: Ordynov. In order to justify the striking change in his personality the main character of The Landlady is a romantic dreamer, whereas the underground man is a cynic misanthrope a connecting three pages were added in between the two parts, in which this psychological transformation was briey explained by the narrator. As Hemmings (1950a) describes, when compared to the Russian source text, also Les freres Karamazov (1888) turns out to be a macrostructurally and highly inadequate translation. Not only was the order of the opening chapters changed and approximately thirty chapters were more or less integrally omitted, but also the original epilogue was extended by six chapters which had originated from the unbridled imagination of the French translators. Because Dostoevsky intended to write a sequel, he had left his The Brothers Karamazov with an open ending: Dmitry is wrongfully convicted for murdering his father and will be sent to Siberia, while the vague plans devised by his brother Alyosha to free him from prison are not carried out. In the happy ending of the French adaptation Les Freres Karamazov (1888), however, Alyosha does nd a way to circumvent the miscarriage of justice: disguised as peasants, he and the licentious Grushenka succeed in setting Dmitry free by corrupting the guards and lling them with liquor. Surprisingly, instead of eloping, Alyosha voluntarily takes the place of his brother in the prison. He falls asleep and receives a vision of his mentor, the deceased monk Zosima. When Alyosha's identity is discovered, legal proceedings are instituted against him. He defends his position so eloquently that the jury bursts into tears. At the culmination point the girl Liza, who before was a cripple in a wheelchair, walks into the courtroom without any aids. She points at Alyosha and screams out: Il m'a sauvee! [He has saved me!] (Les freres Karamazov 1888: 295). With loud applause, her miraculous healing is attributed to Alyosha, who is acquitted and takes Liza home as his ancee. The only thing left to the reader's imagination, is that they lived happily ever after.
Europe's Conquest of the Russian Novel
In Germany and in France the micro-textual and macro-structural shifts that marked the translations Raskolnikow (1882), L'esprit soutterain (1886) and Les freres Karamazov (1888) escaped notice. One exception was Andre Gide, who had read not only French translations of Dostoevsky, but German translations as well (Rayeld 2000: 340). In a 1911 article in Le Figaro, he accused Halperine-Kaminsky and Morice of mutilating the Russian author. In the early 1920s this appreciation reappeared in Gide's widely-read collection Dostoevski and HalperineKaminsky then decided to make his defence. He added extensive prefaces to reprints of his translations L'esprit souterrain and Les freres Karamazov, in which he explained the reasons underlying his translation strategy. The quintessence of his reasoning is that the French readership of the 1880s was not yet ripe for an unpolished Dostoevsky, that in order to give him a fair chance in the French book market it was necessary to soften the culture clash. To enforce his arguments, he underscores that Vog ue had warned the French translators for the risks of une transposition trop servile [an all too servile translation] (Halperine-Kaminsky 1929: 9). Halperine-Kaminsky convincingly argues that if this warning had been neglected, this would have meant eloigner a plaisir et pour de longues annees les lecteurs francais des Freres Karamazov [creating a distance between the French readers and The Brothers Karamazov that would last for many years] (Halperine-Kaminsky 1932: 13). What is more, he assures that if Dostoevsky has become a widely-admired writer in France, it is precisely because of his adaptations, which had become des oeuvres classiques [classical works] in France (HalperineKaminsky 1929: xxvii). It must be said that L'esprit souterrain (1886) and Les freres Karamazov (1888) were indeed highly successful French literary products, as from their rst edition until the Second World War Halperine-Kaminsky's translations were reprinted almost on a yearly basis. As a consequence of the translational creativity of Halperine-Kaminsky and Morice, swarms of readers became acquainted with Dostoevsky's self-willed ction, but only in a strongly abridged and simplied form. It goes without saying this had an enormous impact on their interpretation of the works in question. For instance Nietzsche discovered Dostoevsky via L'esprit souterrain (1886), which he found in 1887 in a bookshop www.lusosoa.net
in Nice. His correspondence testies that he was greatly impressed by Dostoevsky's presumed hochste psychologische Mikroscopie [best psychological microscopy] (Colli & Montinari 1984: 75). At the same time, he did not understand at all that Dostoevsky had written Notes from the Underground, as Frank (1997: 332-343) explains, as a parody of the utilitarian novel What to do? by his contemporary Chernyshevsky. As such, the widely discussed inuence of Dostoevsky on Nietzsche was in fact the inuence of the French translators.
3. The following literatures 3.1. The critics Whereas the German and French literary polysystems needed a crisis to welcome Russian literature in general and Dostoevsky in particular, such was not the case with other European literatures: the mere fact that the author of Crime and Punishment was embraced by leading French and German critics, whose authority surpassed the borders of their own nations, was reason enough to have him translated, read and discussed albeit more as a French and German literary phenomenon than as a Russian author. This Gallo-German inuence on the reception of Dostoevsky in other European literary polysystems has not yet been the object of a comprehensive work, but it is touched upon in a variety of studies concentrating on dierent facets of this reception. Among these studies, the research of Edgerton occupies a central position. A true revelation was the study by Edgerton wherein he proves that, in sharp contrast to the wide-spread idea of a so-called international Slavic brotherhood, the Western and Southern Slavs too followed general European literary fashions and turned to the great Russian novelists only after France and Germany had discovered them (Edgerton 1963: 53-54). For instance, the Polish critics completely silenced Dostoevsky when he was still alive, and Tolstoy would only be discussed after 1885. In the case of the Polish this initial reluctance can easily be explained by the fact the Russians were, after all, occupants of the Polish homeland. However, also the Bulgarian intellectuals, whose program included the study of the Russian language, only paid attention to the Russian www.clepul.eu
Europe's Conquest of the Russian Novel
novelists after they had begun to be translated and discussed in Western Europe. In this respect no fundamental dierence existed between Europe's Slavic and non-Slavic peripheral literatures. The publication history of the rst European translations of Crime and Punishment, the novel that was central to the Russian hype, speaks volumes about the instigating role of France and Germany. The release of Henckel's Raskolnikow in 1882 marked the beginning of a spate of translations which would gain momentum in 1884, when Paris was enriched with Le crime et le chatiment. According to the bibliographic information provided by the writer's widow Dostoevskaja (1906), within less than a decade time after its German discovery translations of Crime and Punishment appeared in Swedish (1883), Danish (1884), Norwegian (1884), Dutch (1885), English (1886), Polish (1887), Serbian (1888), Hungarian (1889), Finnish (1889), Greek (1889) and Italian (1889). In addition to this, Edgerton (1963: 66) situates the rst Croat and Czech versions of Crime and Punishment between 1882 and 1884 and the rst Ukrainian one in 1887. This picture can be lled up with the aid of library catalogues, which allows one to date the rst Portuguese and Spanish translations respectively in 1901 and 1903. The exact date of the rst Rumanian, Bulgarian and Baltic translations of Dostoevsky's novel, in their turn, remain blanketed in obscurity, but it is not very plausible that they took place before the mid-1880s. The above publication history shows that Scandinavian literatures were the rst in Europe to tread in Germany's footsteps. This is not surprising, given the importance that Denmark, Sweden and Norway, sharing a common Germanic heritage, attached to the German culture. A prominent role in the popularization of Russian literature in Scandinavia was played by the Danish writer and critic Georg Brandes, who as an exile in Berlin had strongly contributed to the outbreak of the Russian vogue in the naturalist circles. Together with Von Reinhold, who initially operated from Courland, and Zabel, Brandes was among the most inuential critics of Russian literature in the Germany of the early 1880s. Interestingly, Vog ue (1886a: iii) himself suggests that the popularity of their critiques had fuelled his desire to breach the German monopoly on Dostoevsky. Once the French Viscount had said his piece, he would quickly overshadow the authority of the German critics. Even www.lusosoa.net
though Brandes would loan some appreciations from the Viscount, his own voice would remain a great inuence, especially in Northern countries. Vog ue was not the rst critic in Europe or in his home country to sing the praises of Russian literature, but he was certainly the most successful one, aecting both directly and indirectly the plural European reception of Dostoevsky. His direct inuence is found in his essays published in La revue des deux mondes, to which a large part of Europe's intellectuals were subscribed, and in the worldwide bestseller Le roman russe, which was translated into various languages. In 1887 even a Russian translation was made, which would have a real impact on the Russian image of Dostoevsky (see Rejser 1968). More dicult to assess is the indirect inuence of Vog ue: countless are the critics in Europe, more often than not lacking knowledge of the Russian language, who took the French Viscount's judgments on Russian literature indiscriminately on loan. This applies to the Dutch-, Slavic-, Romance- and even English- speaking regions of Europe. Given the then predominance of the French language in Belgium, it is logical that Dostoevsky's early reception in its Dutch-speaking part was emanating from France rather than from Germany. For instance, as early as 1885 the Flemish critic Segers set the ball rolling with an essay on Dostoevsky that was largely based on the writings by Vog ue. Also in the Netherlands, where developments in the German literature were closely observed, the popularization of the Russian author was led by Gallophile critics: Busken Huet, who reported directly from Paris, and Ten Brink, who was highly indebted to Le roman russe (see Boulogne 2011: 385-397). Another illustration of the French impact on the early Dutch reception of Dostoevsky is the fact that the journal De Amsterdammer, which played a non-negligible role in the popularization of Russian novels, published a review of a French Dostoevsky-translation, which was once again built upon citations from Vog ue. As for the Slavic literary polysystems, Edgerton (1963: 66) points out that in the aftermath of the German translation of his writings on Russian novelists, Brandes was given a prominent voice in the Polish, Czech, Croat, Serbian, Rumanian and Bulgarian literary press of the early 1880s. However, from the second half of the 1880s even in the www.clepul.eu
Europe's Conquest of the Russian Novel
Slavic countries the major role in the literary debate on the Russian was played by the French Viscount. His Le roman russe was brought to the attention of the Polish readers in the very year of its publication in Paris, it decisively inuenced the Czech national leader Tomas Masaryk in his attitude toward Russian literature, it played a similarly inuential role among the Croats and Serbs, and among such neighbours of the Eastern Slavs as the Rumanians and Hungarians, Vog ue's inuence was likewise very great (Edgerton 1963: 71-74). According to another study by Edgerton (1976: 55), the Portuguese critic Magalhaes Lima appears to have been the literary general in charge when the invasion by the Russian novelists of the Iberian Peninsula took place. His writings also bear the deep stamp of Le roman russe, which he recommended as soon as 1886 as a guide to realist Russian literature. In addition, other Portuguese inuential critics, such as the celebrated writer Maria Amalia Vaz de Carvalho, were indebted to the Frenchman. About a year after the introduction of the Russian novel in Portugal, Spain joined the movement. The lead was taken by Countess Emilia Pardo Bazan, who in March 1885 had read Le crime et le chatiment and had personally witnessed the Dostoevsky-hype in Paris. The knowledge of Russian literature she gained with the aid of French translations resulted in a series of lectures at the Athenaeum in Madrid, which thereafter was materialized in the bestseller La revolucion y la novela en Rusia. The publication of this book in 1887 rmly established the Russian novelists as an object of discussion in the authoritative Spanish literary press. This is all the more important, since Bazans inspiration was to such an extent based on Vog ue's Le roman russe that today it would be classied under the denominator of plagiarism (see Osborne 1954: 274). In line with the above ndings researchers dealing with the Italian reception of Russian literature, as recently as Beghin (2007: 22), point to the great impact of Vog ue. Given the then status of the French language as a lingua franca the Viscount did not even need an interpreter in order to be understood in Northern Italy. However, here another powerful voice was raised, wherein judgments on Dostoevsky did not originate from Le roman russe, but from the Russian originals. The voice was www.lusosoa.net
that of the man of letters Count Angelo De Gubernatis, who had been imparted a thorough knowledge of the Russian language and culture by his sister-in-law Elizaveta Bezobrazova (Baselica 2011). Since the English literary polysystem at the end of the 19th century did not occupy a peripheral position to the same extent as the above mentioned literary polysystems, it is surprising to note that here too the inuence of the French Viscount was crucial. Strictly speaking, the English literature was a pioneer in its discovery of Dostoevsky, as already in the year of his death, 1881, a translation of his Notes from the Dead House was published under the title Buried Alive or Ten Years of Penal Servitude in Siberia. However, the interest aroused by this publication was not sucient to call forth other translations (Muchnic 1939: 8). The English reception of Dostoevsky could only get o the ground after his fame had peaked in Paris. As a direct consequence of the success of Le crime et le chatiment, London produced the Dostoevskytranslation Crime and Punishment (1886), which was met by the critics with mixed feelings. Interestingly, according to Muchnic (1939: 15), the English readers' acquaintance with the Russian novelist was due to Le roman russe much more than to Dostoevsky's English translations. In the English-speaking world, Vog ue's work was read in French on a large scale, but from 1887 it existed also in an English translation. For that matter, it was also present on the English book market in disguise, as in 1890 the study by Bazan was translated into English. It seems that May was not exaggerating when she observed that this book did more to shape Western attitudes toward Russian literature than any other work (May 1994: 21).
3.2. The translations Since the image a readership has of a certain author depends on the way in which he is presented by the critics, it is impossible to understand the European images of Dostoevsky without knowledge of Le roman russe. However, as Even-Zohar (1990: 45) has pointed out, the translations of an author's work might be of even more importance for his crystallization in the receiving community. In that sense, it is imwww.clepul.eu
Europe's Conquest of the Russian Novel
portant to note that the literatures that turned to the Russian novelists after they had triumphed in Germany and France, consumed the German and French texts, including such inadequate translations as Raskolnikow (1882) and Les freres Karamazov (1888). For instance, a survey of the 1920s has shown that a considerable part of the then intellectual elite of Flanders and the Netherlands discovered Dostoevsky in German and/or French translation rather than in Dutch translation (see Boulogne 2011), and according to Baselica, in Italy inizialmente i romanzi russi vengono letti piu in francese che in italiano [initially the Russian novelists were read more often in French than in Italian] (Baselica 2011). At the same time the following literatures did not hesitate to complete their own repertoires with translations of Russian literature of their own production, which often kept circulating long after the French and German texts were forgotten. Notwithstanding the weight of their contribution to Dostoevsky's European popularization, these translations have not been systematically studied. Certainly, it is not dicult to nd studies expressing passing comments on their quality. For instance, Morales mentions algunas pesimas traducciones comerciales, que presentan a un Dostoyevski desgurado y mutilado [some very bad commercial translations which present a disgured and mutilated Dostoevsky] (1992: 450). The most striking translational shifts, the reasons underlying the adopted translational strategies and their consequences remain a blind spot. In Descriptive Translation Studies and beyond (Toury 1995) it is advised to rst lay bare the preliminary translational norms governing translation policy with regard to (in)directness. In practice this can be problematic, for the information on the title page might be false. As Ringmar (2007: 7) warns, also the information in catalogues and bibliographies, mostly based on paratexts and title-pages, is not always reliable. Therefore, paratextual information should always be interpreted with care. Besides, it is not exceptional that the translation's general macro-structural features completely conceal its translational status: the title-page may not mention the source language, the translator nor the source text, and the original title may be translated so inadequately that is it beyond recognition. In that case the translation's genealogy can be discerned through the help of claims on the translation rights, if they www.lusosoa.net
can be tracked. It occurs, however, that a translation was made from another text than the corresponding claim said2 . Therefore the most secure way to uncover the (in)directness of a target text is its comparison with the corresponding source text and with potential mediating translations: if the target text and a potential mediating text display similar shifts vis-a-vis the source text, then it can be supposed, by way of a working hypothesis, that they are genealogically related. The application of this methodology to a selection of early Dostoevsky-translations suggests the existence of highly interesting patterns which shed a new light on the European reception of Russian literature. Although the early Slavic Dostoevsky-translations were produced under the inuence of the French and German successes, these texts, such as the Polish translation Zbrodnia i kara (1902, Figure 1), were translated directly from the Russian. If the bibliographical data collected by Dostoevskaja (1906: 221, 242) are correct which is plausible, since publishing houses would rather disguise a second hand translation as a direct one than vice versa Henckel's Raskolnikow (1882) was used as a source text for the rst Norwegian and Swedish translations of Crime and Punishment, respectively Raskolnikow (1883) and Raskolnikow (1884). In addition, descriptive research has shown that the Dutch translation Schuld en boete (1885) was also predominantly established from the German, although it also bears a supercial stamp of Le crime et le chatiment (1884) (see Boulogne 2011: 418-420). The latter French translation, in its turn, served as a source text for at least ve dierent target texts. Notably the second Dutch translation and the rst Italian, Portuguese, Spanish and, more surprisingly, English translations of Crime and Punishment reveal similar deviations vis-a-vis Dostoevsky's original, which can only be explained by a genealogical relationship. For instance, the very rst sentence of the Russian original has been translated inadequately by the original French translator, immediately mentioning that Raskolnikov's house was situated into a at with ve 2
This was for instance the case of the Dutch Dostoevsky-translation Uit Siberie (1891): although the translational rights were claimed for a German translation of Notes from the Dead House, a great part of the Dutch target text originates from the French translation Souvenirs de la maison des morts (1886). See Boulogne (2011: 422-424).
Europe's Conquest of the Russian Novel
Figure 1. The title-page of a direct Polish translation of Crime and Punishment.
stores. As Figure 2 illustrates, this ve-storied at also comes up in Crime and Punishment (1886), Il delitto e il castigo (1889), Een misdaad (1895), Crime e castigo (1901) and Crimen y castigo (1903). Given the fact that the German translation Raskolnikow (1882) provides the reader with a softened version of Dostoevsky's satire on the Germans, its use as a mediating translation brought along a distorted image of the author's poetics in the Northern countries, including Sweden, Norway, the Netherlands and Flanders. Neither is Le crime et le chatiment (1884), on the other hand, a highly adequate translation. Therefore, its success as a mediating translation might have also warped Dostoevsky's European images to some extent. What is more, the previously discussed adaptations by Halperine-Kaminsky and Morice, which present radically dierent plots than the corresponding source texts, found their way to the European translation markets. In Amsterdam, as early as 1887, an anonymous translation of L'esprit souterrain (1886) was brought out under the title De onderaardsche geest (1887). In the next century, this French translational amalgam also served as a source text for at least three more European translations: the Spanish text El espiritu subterraneo (n.d., see Figure 3) and the Italian texts Lo spirito sotterraneo (1930) and Lo spirito sotterraneo (1933). In addition to this, in Brazil a Portuguese translation from the French by Rosario Fusco www.lusosoa.net
was brought out by Epasa under the title O esprito subterraneo (n.d.). Finally, even the work that today is generally considered one of the greatest masterpieces of the Russian literature, The Brothers Karamazov, was translated into various European languages from a French belle indele : not Dostoevsky's original open ending, but the adapted saccharine epilogue of Les freres Karamazov (1888) constitutes the nal of at least ve translations: the Dutch translations De gebroeders Karamazow (1913) and De gebroeders Karamazow (n.d.) (see Boulogne 2009), the Italian translations Il parricidio (1892) and I fratelli Karamazo (1929), and the Spanish translation Los hermanos Karamazof (n.d.). The Portuguese Os irm aos Karamazo (1937) contains a strongly shortened epilogue, but also this translation is based on Halperine-Kaminsky's and Morice's text. There is, however, one important dierence between the French translation and the translations in other languages: the former manifested itself as an adaptation, whilst the latter texts as a rule were presented to the readership without notice about their far-reaching macro-structural inadequacy. Here above, indirectness has been shown to be a translational norm in the majority of the non-Slavic literary polysystems that followed the German and French vogue of the Russian novel. The question remains, why was Dostoevsky systematically translated from German and/or French texts, especially if some of them were highly inadequate? Surely, the main reason was not that the literatures in question lacked translators who were able to translate directly from the Russian: if such a demand really had existed, competent translators would have been found or trained in less than a decade's time although it is subjective, one may maintain that if such trainings did not exist, it was because the market, tolerating second hand translations, could manage without them. It seems, rather, that the following literatures were not that interested in Dostoevsky as a Russian writer, but rather in reproducing his success as a German and/or French literary product. Not the Russian originals, but the Germanized and Gallicized versions had been ercely admired and sold in Frankfurt, Leipzig, Berlin and Paris. Since these translations were already ltered, polished and approved for the Western markets, they could safely be taken as source texts. For instance, the Portuguese critic Magalh aes Lima explicitly recommended Portuguese www.clepul.eu
Europe's Conquest of the Russian Novel
Figure 2. The mediating role of Le crime et le chatiment (1884). www.lusosoa.net
Figure 3. The jacket ap of a Spanish second-hand adaptation of The Landlady and Notes from the Underground.
translators to use French translations as intermediaries (Edgerton 1976: 54). This piece of advice was eagerly taken into practice, and not only in the rst stage of the Russian literary inux as also the Portuguese translation Crime e castigo (1946) was made from the French Le crime et le chatiment (1884). Clearly, Europe's discovery of the Russian novel did not go hand in hand with a concern about translational adequacy.
4. Conclusion: Europe's conquest of the Russian novel It is tempting to believe that the Russian novel is canonized worldwide because of its intrinsic literary qualities, but the example of Dostoevsky suggests that this might be only a part of the explanation. Not until Europe's dominant literatures were struck by a crisis in the 1880s was considerable attention paid to Dostoevsky outside of Russia. However, in the rst stage, he was only found interesting as far as he could be used as an innovating literary model to defuse the literary crisis. With this explicit aim the dominant critic Vog ue presented the author of Crime and Punishment as, to use the words of May: a paragon of decency and truthfulness with a moral edge (May 1994: 21). At the same www.clepul.eu
Europe's Conquest of the Russian Novel
time, a steadfast consensus existed that some ripe works and some features of Dostoevsky's oeuvre left much to be desired. The paratexts by Henckel (1882) and Halperine-Kaminsky (1929, 1930) indicate that this critical selectiveness encouraged the German and French translators to introduce important macro-structural and micro-textual shifts to their translations, eradicating the disturbing elements. As such, the German and French critics and translators collectively contributed to the construction of Dostoevsky as the gloomy champion of the humiliated and insulted. Because of his dazzling literary and commercial success in the centrally-positioned German and the French literary polysystems, in the last decades of the 19th century Dostoevsky was spotted by Europe's other literatures too. However, it would be wrong to think that he was equally celebrated everywhere. For instance, in the Dutch literary polysystem, his prestige would be quite limited before the Great War (see Boulogne 2011: 385-397), and in England he was not widely read (. . . ) until after the publication of The Brothers Karamazov in 1912 (Muchnic 1939: 9). In line with his varying prestige, he was not given the same role in the leading literatures as in the following literatures, whose main drive underlying the introduction of his works was, after all, inter-systemic imitation. In Europe's peripheral literatures Dostoevsky initially did not perform an innovating function, but rather a conservative one: he was used to validate the long-existing dominance of German and French literary models. This explains why the innovating forces of these peripheral literatures, as for instance the Dutch Movement of 1880, were not always eager to actively contribute to his fame. As a consequence of the fact that Dostoevsky attracted Europe's following literatures in the rst place as a successful German and French literary product, the German and French translations and critics who had popularized him in the leading literatures played a major role in his plural European reception: Vog ue was an uncontested authority in the whole of Europe, and Dostoevsky was systematically translated indirectly from the French and/or the German into a variety of languages. A secondary eect of this subordination was that some following literatures were, at least in the rst stage, trapped in a vicious circle: their critics, lacking knowledge of Russian, relied on Vog ue's judgments and www.lusosoa.net
on the existing translations, and their translators, not knowing Russian either, relied on French and/or German translations. Given the fact that the most successful German and French mediating texts, notably Raskolnikow (1882), Le crime et le chatiment (1884), L'esprit souterrain (1886) and Les freres Karamazov (1888), were more or less targeted toward acceptability, the following literatures which translated from these texts were in a way cut o from the Russian Dostoevsky. Undoubtedly this is why some of his most fundamental aspects, such as his philosophical aspirations, his politically-incorrect satire and his polyphonic writing style, for a long time remained in the shadow of his presumed philanthropy and psychological insights. Given the specic agenda of Vog ue and the spectacular shifts in the French translations that are to be held responsible for Dostoevsky's European discovery, it no longer seems appropriate to imagine the French hype of the Russian novel of the 1880s as the revenge of the Russian for the Napoleonic invasion. The metaphor should rather be reversed: this hype is better represented as the revenge of the Frenchman for Napoleon's defeat, as the above ndings suggest that the early European reception of the Russian novel largely comes down to its French annexation. For that matter, two concluding notes are essential. First, also the reception of Dostoevsky in North and South America is, albeit to some extent, concerned with this annexation, for several translations and critical texts produced in France, England, Spain and Portugal were translated, published, read and/or discussed over the ocean. Examples are Le roman russe, Bazan's book and the English second hand translation Crime and Punishment. Second, it remains unclear if the other Russian novelists that were brought to Europe (and introduced in the canon of World Literature) in the same wave as Dostoevsky underwent a similar large-scale manipulation. This should be claried in descriptive translation studies yet to come.
References Primary literature3 Dutch translations 1885 Dostojewsky, F.M. Schuld en boete.'s Gravenhage: A. Rossing. Vert. Petros Kuknos. 1888 Dostojewsky F. M. De onderaardsche geest. Russische roman. Amsterdam: A. Rossing. Vert. F. van Burchvliet. 1891 Dostojefsky F.M. Uit Siberie. Amsterdam: S. Warendorf Jr. 1895 Dostoievsky, F. Een misdaad. Russische roman. [Amsterdam]: Het Volksdagblad. 1913 Dostojefsky, F.M., De gebroeders Karamazow. Amsterdam: Van Holkema & Warendorf. Vert. Anna van Gogh-Kaulbach. n.d. Dostojewsky, F.M. De gebroeders Karamazow. Amsterdam: Hollandsch Uitgeversfonds. [ca. 1930]. English translation 1886 Dostoyevsky, Feodor. Crime and Punishment. A Russian Realistic Novel. London: Vizetelly. Translated by F. Whishaw. French translations 1884 Dostoevsky, Th. Le crime et le chatiment. Paris: Plon. Trad. par Victor Derely. 1886 Dostoevsky, Th. L'esprit souterrain. Paris: Plon. Traduit et adapte par E. Halperine-Kaminsky & Ch. Morice. 1886 Dostoevsky, Th. Souvenirs de la maison des morts. Paris: Plon. Traduit du russe par M. Neyroud. 3
Only the translations mentioned in this article that were the object of genealogical or other descriptive research are listed here.
1888 Dostoevsky, Th. Les freres Karamazov. Paris: Plon. Traduit et adapte par E. Halperinsky & Ch. Morice. German translations 1882 Dostojewskij, F.M. Raskolnikow. Leipzig: Friedrich. Ubersetzt von Wilhelm Henckel. 1890 Dostojewski, F.M. Erniedrigte und Beleidigte. Berlin: Verlag von Otto Janke. Aus dem Russischen u bersetzt von L.A. Hau. Italian translations 1889 Dostoievski, F. Il delitto e il castigo (Raskolniko ). Romanzo. Milano: Fratelli Treves. 1892 Dostojewski, Teodoro. Il parricidio. Trad. da F. Verdinois. Mattino. 30 maggio 1892 (a. I, n.75) 24 settembre 1892. 1929 Dostoyewsky, Feodor. I fratelli Karamazo. Romanzo. Milano: Fratelli Treves. 1930 Dostoievski, Feodor. Lo spirito sotterraneo. Romanzo. Traduzione dal russo di Leo Gastovinski. Milano: Bietti. 1933 Dostoievski, Feodor. Lo spirito sotterraneo. Romanzo. Traduzione dal francese di Decio Cinti. Milano: Sonzogno. Polish translation 1902 Dostojewski. Zbrodnia i kara. Powiesc w 2 tomach. Lodz-Warszawa: K. Brzozowski. Przelo zyl Boleslaw Londy nski. Wydanie przejrzane i poprawione przez St. K. Portuguese translations 1901 Dostoiewsky. Crime e castigo. Traducao de Camara Lima. Lisboa: Tavares Cardoso & Irmao. n.d. Dostoievski. O esprito subterraneo. Novela. Traducao de Rosario Fusco. Traducao feita sobre o texto frances de E. Halperine-Kaminski [sic]. Rio: Epasa. n.d. Dostoewsky, Th. Os irm aos Karamazo. Revisao de A. Augusto dos Santos Porto: Progredior. www.clepul.eu
Europe's Conquest of the Russian Novel
1946 Dostoewsky. Crime e castigo. Traducao de A. Augusto dos Santos. Porto: Progreditor. Spanish translations 1903 Dostoyewski, Fedoro. Traduccion by Eusebio Heras. Crimen y castigo. Barcelona: Maucci. n.d. Dostoyewski, Fedoro. El espritu subterr aneo. Adaptacion castellana por Mario Verdaguer Barcelona: Maucci. [ca 1920]. n.d. Dostoyevsky, T . Los hermanos Karamazof. Traduccion de Francisco Ca nadas. Barcelona: Maucci.
Secondary literature Baselica, Giulia. 2011. Alla scoperta del `genio russo'. Le traduzioni italiane di narrativa russa fra ne Ottocento e primo Novecento. Tradurre. Accessed 18 July 2012. http://rivistatradurre.it/2011/04/tradurre-dal-russo-2/. Beghin, Laurent. 2007. Da Gobetti a Ginzburg. Diusione e ricezione della cultura russa nella Torino del primo dopoguerra. Bruxelles-Roma: Institut historique belge de Rome. Boulogne, Pieter. 2009. The French Inuence in the Early Dutch Reception of F.M. Dostoevsky's Brat'ja Karamazovy . Babel. 55:3. 264284. Boulogne, Pieter. 2011. Het temmen van de Scyth. De vroege Nederlandse receptie van F.M. Dostoevskij. Amsterdam: Pegasus. (Pegasus Oost-Europese Studies 17). Boulogne, Pieter. 2012. `Vers la construction d'un Dostoevski monophononique: Heteroglossies et langage ecorche dans les traductions neerlandaises d'avantguerre des oeuvres de Dostoevski'. In Canadian Review of Comparative Literature 39: 1 (March 2012). 47-62. Colli & Montinari. 1984. Friedrich Nietzsche Briefe. Januar 1887Januar 1889. Berlin-New York: Walter de Gruyter. Dostoevskaja, A. (comp.) 1906. Bibliograceskij ukazatel' socinenij i proizvedenij iskusstva, otnosjascichsja k zizni i dejatel'nosti F.M. Dostoevskogo sobrannych v Muzee pamjati F.M. Dostoevskogo v Moskovskom Istoriceskom Muzee imeni Imperatora Aleksandra III. 1846-1903 gg. www.lusosoa.net
Sankt-Peterburg: Tipograja P.F. Panteleeva. Accessed June 29, 2012. http://smalt.karelia.ru/âˆźlolog/agdost/texts/bibl. Edgerton, William B. 1963. The Penetration of Nineteenth-Century Russian Literature into the other Slavic Countries. American Contributions to the Fifth International Congress of Slavists. Soa, September 1963. Volume II: Literary Contributions. The Hague: Mouton & Co. 41-78. Edgerton, William B. 1976. `Tolstoy and Magalhaes Lima. Comparative Literature. 28:1. 51-64. Even-Zohar, Itamar. 1990. Polysystem Studies. Tel Aviv: The Porter Institute for Poetics and Semiotics Durham: Duke University Press. Frank, Joseph. 1997. Dostoevsky. The Seeds of Revolt. 1821-1849. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Halperine-Kaminsky, E. 1929. Comment on a d u traduire Dostoevsky. Th. Dostoevsky. L'esprit souterrain. i-xxviii. Halperine-Kaminsky, E. 1932. Preface Th. Dostoevsky. Les freres Karamazov. 13-14. Hemmings, F.W.J. 1950a. Dostoevsky in Disguise. The 1888 French version of The Brothers Karamazov . French Studies. A Quaterly Review. Volume IV. Oxford: Basil Blackwell. 227-238. Hemmings, F.W.J.1950b. The Russian Novel in France 1884-1914. Oxford: University Press. Henckel, Wilhelm. 1882. Vorwort des Ubersetzers. F.M. Dostojewskij, Raskolnikow. v-viii. Hoefert, Sigfrid. 1974 . Russische Literatur in Deutschland. Texte zur Rezeption von den Achtziger Jahren bis zur Jahrhundertwende. T ubingen: Max Niemeyer Verlag. Loew, Roswitha. 1991. Wilhelm Henckel Ein Mittler russischer Literatur und Kultur in Deutschland (1878-1910). Greifswald: Philosophische Fakultaet der Ernst-Moritz-Arndt-Universitaet. May, Rachel. 1994. The Translator in the Text. On Reading Russian Literature in English. Evaston, Illinois: Northwestern University Press. Moe, Vera Ingunn. 1981. Deutscher Naturalismus und ausl andische Literatur. Zur Rezeption der Werke von Zola, Ibsen und Dostojewski durch die deutsche naturalistische Bewegung (1880-1895). Dissertation,
Europe's Conquest of the Russian Novel
Philosophische Fakultat der Rheinisch-Westfalischen Technischen Hochschule Aachen. Morales, Jose. 2005. Dostoyevski en el pensamiento religioso de Occidente. Acta Theologica. Volumen de escritos del autor, ofrecido por la Facultad de Teologa de la Universidad de Navarra Pamplona: Eunsa. 449-467. Accessed June 29, 2012. http://dspace.si.unav.es/dspace/handle/10171/20672. Muchnic, Helen. 1939. Dostoevsky's English Reputation (1881-1936). Northampton: Smith College. Osborne, Robert E. 1954. Emilia Pardo Bazan y la novella rusa. Revista Hispanica Moderna 20: 4. 273-281. Rayeld, Donald. 2000. A Virgil to his Dante: Gide's Reception of Dostoevsky. Forum for Modern Language Studies. 36: 1. 340-356. Rejser, S. A. 1968. Vse my vysli iz gogolevskoj Sineli . Istorija odnoj legendy. Voprosy literatury. 2. 184-187. Ringmar, Martin. 2007. Roundabout Routes. Some Remarks on Indirect Translations. Francis Mus, ed. Selected Papers of the CETRA Research Seminar in Translation Studies 2006. Accessed June 29, 2012. http://www.arts.kuleuven.be/cetra/papers. Toury, Gideon. 1995. Descriptive Translation Studies and beyond. Amsterdam-Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Vog ue, Eugene Melchior de. 1885. Les ecrivains russes contemporains. Revue des deux mondes. 1. 312-356. Vog ue, Eugene Melchior de. 1886. Le roman russe. Paris: Plon. Waldm uller, Robert. 1885. Ein russischer Roman. Die Br uder Karamasow . Blatter f ur literarische Unterhaltung. 566-568. Zabel, Eugen von. 1884. Portrats aus dem russischen Literaturleben. Unsere Zeit. Deutsche Revue der Gegenwart. Neue Folge. Heft 19. 332-346.
Translating Polish Prose in France in 1945-2009: Politics, Economy, Consecration El zbieta Skibi nska University of Wroclaw email@example.com
Abstract Paris not so long ago played a mediating function in literary transfer. A French translation of a work, especially coming from literatures in `dominated' languages, often turned out to be `a test of quality' opening the possibilities for translations into other languages, sometimes performed on the basis of the French text and not the original. This was the case as late as in the last decades when Polish literary works entered literary circulation in countries of the Iberian Peninsula. The purpose of this study is to discuss the translation of Polish literary prose in France in 1945-2009 and to see how the process of this `literary import' is regulated by factors other than the artistic quality of works published in translation. The eects of non-literary factors (e.g. political or economic) may impact upon the mediating function of French translations in cultural transfer. Keywords Polish literary prose, French translation, Political and economic factors, Mediating function in the literary transfer.
El zbieta Skibi nska
0. Introduction Paris is not only the capital of the literary world. It is also, as a result, the gateway to the `world market of intellectual goods', (. . . ) the chief place of consecration in the world of literature. Consecration in Paris is indispensable for authors from all dominated literary spaces (Casanova 2007: 127). Even if the words of the author of Republique mondiale des lettres no longer describe the current situation at the beginning of the 21st century Paris ceases to be The Greenwich Meridian of Literature (Casanova 2007: 87) or the only or central place of consecration Paris had played such a mediating function in the cultural (here: literary) transfer until not so long ago. In the international literary eld, a French translation of a work, especially coming from literatures in dominated languages1 , often turned out to be `a test of quality' opening the possibilities for translations into other languages, sometimes performed on the basis of the French text and not the original. This was the case as late as in the last decades when Polish literary works entered the literary circulation in countries of the Iberian Peninsula2 . The purpose of this study is to discuss the presence (by way of translation) of Polish literary prose in France in 1945-2009 and to see how the process of this `literary import' is regulated by factors other than the artistic quality of works published in translation. The eects 1
The notions `dominating language'/`dominated language' were introduced by Casanova (1999/2007 and 2002: 9); see also Heilbron (1999), where the hierarchical structure of the international translation system is discussed, basing on the analysis of the international ows of translated books. 2 An example of a translation on the basis of the French version may be the Portuguese translation of Pornograa by Gombrowicz or Maska by Lem; Marcin Kurek (2009: 82-83) stresses that Polish literature almost always reaches across the Pyrenees through the French gate; see also: Zaboklicka (2010: 578). Gisele Sapiro quotes an American and a Chilean publisher for whom the translation into French is a necessary `mediator' (French is my gateway language says the former) (Sapiro 2009: 294-295). However, we should note that the phenomenon of using the third, mediating language in translation is also present in France, in the case of the works of Polish authors translated on the basis of English (Herling-Grudzi nski, Kapusci nski, Ossendowski, Szpilman) or Russian translations.
Translating Polish Prose in France in 1945-2009
of non-literary factors (e.g. political or economic) may impact upon the mediating function of French translations in cultural transfer (in the cases concerned, the Spanish and Portuguese literary eld). The material for discussion is the list of works from the category `literary prose' (apart from novels and short stories, it also includes literary reportage, essays and memoirs composed by professional writers). Their originals were written in Polish (regardless of the place where the work was written and originally published3 ) and they were translated into French and published in book form in 1945-2009, mainly in France4 . The period under analysis (64 years) is long enough to observe various factors inuencing translation (which, due to its `international' nature, is conditioned also by non-literary factors). The starting date is marked by a historical moment especially signicant for Poland and its literature (the end of World War II and the resulting political changes). The year 2009 closes the period of twenty years that had elapsed since the fall of communism. The list does not cover reissues of translations made after 1945 or the second and subsequent reissues of translations from before 1945. It was prepared on the basis of data from: on-line catalogues of Bibliotheque Nationale de France on-line catalogues of the National Library of Poland existing bibliographies of Polish literature in translations5 catalogues of French publishers (printed or available on-line). 3
We adopt the language criterion, not the geographical one, avoiding in this manner the issue of the division of the works of Polish authors into `domestic' and `in exile'. This problem will be discussed further on. 4 The activity of two publishing houses based in Switzerland, namely L'Age d'Homme (Lausanne) and Noir sur Blanc (Montrichier, Lausanne), is also important. Both have been present in a signicant manner on the French market since their establishment (the former 1966, the latter 1987) due to, inter allia, their own bookstores in Paris. We also take into account several translations published as books in the 1940s and 1950s by the Belgian publishing house Gerard et Cie (later Marabout) active on the French market (as part of Hachette from the 1970s). 5 Wilgat (1965); Ryll (1972); Bilikiewicz-Blanc (2005); yearbook Rocznik Polonica Zagraniczne (1956-1989).
El zbieta Skibi nska
The list has 393 items, published by approx. 80 publishing houses and translated into French by nearly 100 translators (some of these translators worked in teams). Due to the diculties in determining bibliographic data (resulting, among others things, from faulty, unreliable, incomplete descriptions or descriptions diering in various sources), the collection may not be considered complete. Still, it will suce to describe certain phenomena taking place in the part of the French publishing eld which relates to the presence of Polish prose translations6 .
1. The position of translation in the French literary eld For centuries Paris was considered the capital of La Republique des Lettres and French was its language. This was due to the central position of French literature and its relation to other literatures, manifesting itself in a characteristic autarchy and a certain aversion or superiority towards translated literatures. According to Itamar Even-Zohar, (. . . ) the French cultural system, French literature naturally included, is much more rigid than most other systems. This, combined with the long traditional central position of French literature within the European context (or within the European macropolysystem), has caused French translated literature to assume an extremely peripheral position (Even-Zohar 1990: 50)7 .
Translated works played a rather ancillary role which nevertheless has been undergoing changes over time: in the Renaissance it was supposed to enrich and develop the language, in the 17th and 18th centuries to enrich the reader for whom it opened the otherness of foreign cultures (an otherness which was, nevertheless, submitted through `the French lter': translation strategies basically consisted of adapting 6
See: The problem is not whether or not a corpus should be complete. It is instead whether or not our questions are important enough for us to invest in a certain degree of completeness. (Pym 1998: 49). 7 Casanova, on the other hand, speaks about a peculiar blindness [of Paris], particularly with regard to writings from those countries that are most distant from it (Casanova 2007: 34).
Translating Polish Prose in France in 1945-2009
original texts to the aesthetic requirements of the recipient culture). It was in the period of Romanticism that the translators started to see their work as aiming at intercultural mediation in the contemporary sense. The rst three decades of the 19th century were marked by the opening to other literatures8 but the subsequent years, especially the end of the century, was a period of an inconsistent approach towards introducing translations into the French literary domain. `The French complacency'9 manifested itself in various manners: in the lack of interest for the works of foreign authors, in the `innate inability' to appreciate their works10 and the belief that the French should defend themselves against `the invasion' of foreign literature this is testied to by the polemics around the translation of Henryk Sienkiewicz's Quo Vadis? in 1900 (Chevrel 2012: 257-258), and in the years after World War II by the claims that French literature should be protected against translation (Popa 2010: 36-37). The ambiguous relation to foreign literature and translation, and the rigidity of the French cultural system noted by Even-Zohar are probably the sources of the (stereotypical?) assumption that France is a country where little is translated. However, numerical data from the last decades prove otherwise. To be more precise, the situation is changing and translations form a growing section of the publishing market in France. In the 1960s, literary translations constituted 10% of published books, 14% in the 1970s and 15-18% in 1985-199111 . 8 Translations constitute one third of publishing production in Paris see Chevrel, D'hulst, Lombez eds. (2012: 337). We may indicate one reason (among others): Alexandre Pigoreau, publisher and bookseller, stated in 1821 that too few books are written in France and they need to be looked for overseas, i.e., brought from abroad to satisfy the insatiable readers (quoted after Prungnaud 1994: 19-20). 9 L'autosatisfaction francaise term borrowed from Chevrel (2012: 448). 10 See critical reaction to translations of Pan Tadeusz by Adam Mickiewicz (Skibi nska 2006: 400-402) as well opinions of French writers concerning the redundancy of translation, quoted by Chevrel (1988: 37-38). 11 Data from Sapiro (2008: 78) and Sapiro and Bokobza (2008: 146). See also Ganne and Minon (1992: 55-95) who note that in 1985-1991 the number of translations as compared to the overall publishing production in the belles-lettres and humanist sciences domain in France increased by 3%, just like in West Germany, while in Great Britain by 0.3%, in Spain by 1% and in Italy it did not increase at all. In Pierre Assouline's report on the situation of translators in France published by Centre National
El zbieta Skibi nska
These changes are due to various, also extra-literary factors: the intensication of international cultural exchange (related to tightening relations within the European Community and the arrangements of the GATT Uruguay Round in 1986, which included the principles of intellectual property rights protection into the international trade domain), changes in France's position in the global culture (see Morrison, Compagnon 2008), publishing policy in France (subsidizing publications from state resources see Assouline 2011: 147-182; Ganne 1992: 68; and Colas 1992: 97-124); the launch of the Les Belles Etrangeres festival in 1987 as well as the restructuring of the publishing market forced by globalization mechanisms (whereby books are seen more in terms of their marketing rather than by their symbolic value): the concentration of publishing houses, their takeovers by large, often international, groups, or the specialization of publishing houses (Bourdieu, 1999; Mollier 2009: 27-43). Translated literature has a specic position in such a publishing eld. Translations, apart from bestsellers and works by internationally recognized authors, reach a limited audience and often result in economic losses (Sapiro 2002: 80; Bobowicz 1998: 119-123). No wonder then that they are treated dierently in large well-established publishing houses and in small and/or new presses; this dierentiation is also related to the language of the original publication. In small publishing houses, translation is, rst of all, a source for accumulating symbolic capital12 . However, they do not have enough economic capital and thus they focus on discovering authors writing in dominated, semi-peripheral or peripheral languages, not known in France but with a reliable position in their countries (the possibility of a translation into French is a consecrating factor for these authors and thus they sometimes give up royalties; on the other hand, the consecration of a foreign author in his or her domestic eld is a du Livre on June 30, 2011, the author emphasizes that 13% of translations published in 2004 all over the world are translations done in France (La France est ainsi devenue le premier traducteur planetaire (13 % des traductions realisees dans le monde en 2004). Assouline 2011: 15; http://en.calameo.com/read/001828715ed4663320881, accessed on December 8, 2012). 12 Editions du Seuil, specializing in German literature at the beginning of its activities (Grass, Boll), is a telling example of a publishing house that built its symbolic capital on translated literature (Serry 2002: 70-79).
Translating Polish Prose in France in 1945-2009
guarantee of the work's literary quality, which reduces the nancial risk and serves the symbolic capital). In this manner, paying attention to the quality of both the literature and the translation, the small publishers make long-term investments13 . Large publishing houses may focusing on quick prot invest large sums of money in safe bestsellers (mainly from English, purchased at high prices)14 , and, at the same time for the sake of the symbolic capital invest in intellectual bestsellers that are part of the long-term production (Bourdieu 1999; Casanova 2002). These bestsellers often coming from dominated literatures are most often published in series, such as Gallimard's Du Monde entier, Albin Michel's Les grandes traductions, Laont's Pavillons-Domaines de l'Est 15 , Stock's Bibliotheque cosmopolite and others. Including a work in a specic series may be a factor inuencing its attractiveness, although this does not need to be automatic, according to Yves Chevrel: A translated text does not occupy the same position in the cultural eld of the target system if it is published as a paper-back, or in a prestigious collection like Bibliotheque de la Pleiade, or by a publishing house that aims at editing rather rare books. In this respect the phenomenon of the collection d'auteurs etrangers (. . . ) is a sign of great importance, but also establishes the foreign work in a kind of ghetto (Chevrel 1989: 143).
13 Ganne and Minon (1992: 70-71) also emphasize the fact that small and mediumsize publishing houses (not only French ones) base their development on translations; an example is the publishing house Actes Sud, 70 % of the production of which in the rst years of its existence are translations. They also point out the opinions of some French publishers justifying the increase in the number of translations with certain deciencies of the domestic literature. 14 As Sapiro (2008: 80-81) demonstrates, the number of translations from English increased from 56% of the entire French translation activities in 1980-1987 to 66 % in the period 1980-2002, while belles-lettres constituted half of the translations in both periods. Assouline (2011: 159), who analysed data on subsidies granted by CNL, states that translations from English are the ones that benet the most from this form of support: 41.1 % of works translated from this language used 48.2 % of funds for subsidies in 2004-2008, while the share of subsidies for translations from English grows every year in the overall amount of subsidies. 15 For the role of the series Pavillons-Domaines de l'Est, see Skibi nska 2014.
El zbieta Skibi nska
2. The position of the translation of Polish prose in the French literary eld The situation of literary translation in France outlined above will be used as the background to present the translation ow from Poland. Its quantitative evolution has been presented in Figures 1 and 2. The decade-to-decade comparison (5-year period is marked only for the post-war years) demonstrates that the number of translations increases rapidly. Three periods in the translation reception of Polish literature can be distinguished: 1945-1959, 1960-1979 and 1980-2009 (this is not signicantly changed by the 5-year range perspective see Figure 2 presenting the dynamics within decades). The simplest explanation for this increase could be that there were more and more original works which could be translated. However, obviously, everything is never translated and the selection was probably subject to the factors proper to the French publishing market outlined above, but not only: in this time frame the process of translation appears to have been controlled also by factors originating from the Polish source culture.
Figure 1. Number of translated titles, chronological perspective (10-year ranges).
Translating Polish Prose in France in 1945-2009
Figure 2. Number of translated titles, chronological perspective (5-year ranges).
2.1. 1945-1954 Despite the small number of published translations the rst decade after World War II saw the pre-conguration of the phenomena that would intensify in the subsequent years. The authors of translated works include (in chronological order): Wanda Wasilewska (1945), Stanislaw Dygat (1946), Maria Kuncewiczowa (1946), Leon Kruczkowski (1947)16 , Stanislaw Reymont (1948), (1949), Jozef Czapski (1949), Stanislawa Kuszelewska (1949), Janusz Meissner (1950), Zoa Kossak-Szczucka (1951), Henryk Sienkiewicz (1952), Czeslaw Milosz (1953; 1953) and Eliza Orzeszkowa (1954)17 . These authors fall into two groups: dead classics whose novels were reissued (Sienkiewicz, Reymont) or translated for the rst time (Orzeszkowa), and living authors. The latter group, however, is not homogenous because it includes: (a) a post-war debutant (Dygat) as well as writers and political activists living in Poland and related to the post-war authorities (Wasilewska, Kruczkowski) whose work began in 16
In 1950, the publishing house Editeurs francais reunis published also a translation of his drama Les Allemands ou la Familie Sonnenbruch. 17 Apart from the novels, the following anthologies were published in the Pierre Seghers publishing house: Poetes polonais (1949), Prosateurs polonais (1950), Pages polonaises (1953). These anthologies are not considered in the gures presented here.
El zbieta Skibi nska
the pre-war period; (b) writers living in exile at the time when the translation was published: either in Great Britain (Kossak-Szczucka, Kuncewiczowa, Kuszelewska) or in France (Czapski, Milosz). Such dierentiation resulted from the fact that World War II and the order established during the Yalta Conference divided the literature written in Polish into domestic and exile writing18 . Stanislaw Beres notes the following about the dierences between them: Domestic and exile literature, heated up by strong political emotions, convinced of their exclusive right to represent the national culture, accusing one another of crimes against raison d'etat, speaking of the same matters through completely dierent languages, form two dierent cultural phenomena, two dierent literatures. Between 1945 and 1990, for almost fty years, both literatures develop in dierent conditions, create dierent laws, moral systems, dene their privileges and duties in dierent manners, nd the center of the Polish character in dierent places, dene the patterns of behavior towards the Communist reality in a strikingly dierent manner. All this results in the fact that being two halves of the national whole they evolve dierently, creating their own rhythm of historical-literary changes (Beres 2002: 179)19 . (our translation)
When looking from the translation perspective, this list makes us aware how important it is to exceed the language-nationality-geography frames and to take into account phenomena related to the migration of people and cultures when researching translation phenomena. Presenting the translation exchange only as one taking place in a binary system, between two monolingual countries/cultures is a simplication, falsifying the actual situation as Tymoczko (2007: 173-4) points out. 19 Pismiennictwo krajowe i emigracyjne, podgrzane silnymi namie tnosciami politycznymi, przeswiadczone o wyla cznosci praw do reprezentowania kultury narodowej, oskar zaja ce sie wzajemnie o zbrodnie przeciw polskiej racji stanu, m owia ce o tych samych sprawach zupelnie r oz nymi je zykami, formuja dwa r oz ne zjawiska kulturowe, dwie ro zne literatury. Od roku 1945 do 1990, a zatem przez niemal p ol wieku, obie literatury rozwijaja sie w innych warunkach, wytwarzaja odre bne prawa, systemy ocen moralnych, inaczej deniuja swe przywileje i powinnosci, gdzie indziej sytuuja centrum polskosci, dramatycznie r oz nie deniuja modele postaw wobec komunistycznej rzeczywistosci. To wszystko powoduje, z e stanowia c dwie polowy narodowej calosci ewoluuja inaczej, wytwarzaja c wlasne rytmy historycznoliterackich przemian. (Beres 2002: 179)
Translating Polish Prose in France in 1945-2009
Political events also dene new rules of literary transfers, operating after the imposition of Communist regimes in Eastern European countries where the Soviet authorities inicted their solutions in all elds of life, including literature. Ideological factors determined not only the choice of foreign authors who would be published in Polish translation but also the choice of local writers who would be `exported' through translation. In terms of the French translation market, this situation results in a signicant diversication in the forms of transfer of works from literatures in Central and Eastern European languages. Ioana Popa (2010), who has analyzed its general mechanisms in 1947-1989, distinguishes between a `legitimized space' (espace autorise ) and a `non-legitimized space, i.e., beyond control' (espace non autorise ). (The `legitimization' is, of course, performed by the authorities of the exporting country.) There are three various translation circulations in each of these spaces20 . Adopting this division, the translations of works of the abovementioned Polish authors may be situated in the ocial and patrimonial circulation (legitimized space21 ) and in the parallel and direct circula20
The legitimized space consists of: the export circulation (circuit d'exportation ), including translations published in the country of origin, with foreign distribution in mind, according to the voluntaristic policy of institutions (magazines, publishing houses) created for this purpose; ocial circulation (circuit ociel ), including contemporary works, ocially published in their country of origin and then translated and published by French publishing houses with consent of ocial instances, such as literary agencies or competent commissions of writers' associations; patrimonial circulation (circuit patrimonial ), including works published in the language and country of their origin before 1947. The non-legitimized space (also referred to as the space `beyond control') consists of: semi-ocial circulation (circuit semi-ociel ), including works legally published in the language and country of origin but covered with a ban on translation and its publication in France; parallel circulation (circuit parallele ), including translations of works published in the language of origin by instances functioning outside the legal circulation (domestic underground publishing houses or publishing houses in exile); and direct circulation (circuit direct ), including case where the French translation (or translation in another language) is the rst form/version of the text (Popa 2010: 12-23). 21 Popa's typology would require here a certain specication concerning authors such as Nobel Prize laureates Sienkiewicz or Reymont, namely dead but renowned ones, with an established position in the international literary circulation, functioning in it as `classics' and most importantly not subject to decisions from state
El zbieta Skibi nska
tion (beyond control)22 . It should be emphasized that although the division criterion suggested by Popa is the text's source culture, she (as well as we) is/are interested in its function in the target culture. This function in the rst years after World War II when translations of foreign literature aroused controversies - seems to be determined by the work's political `usefulness' rather than the economic one. Tout livre [est] une arme pour nous ou contre nous [each book is a weapon for us or against us] these words by Elsa Triolet (quote after Popa 2010: 27) summarize the logic of binary opposites: Soviet totalitarianism against western anti-totalitarianism, (philo)communism against anti-communism. This may explain the decisions of translation publishers until the mid 1950s. Some of them, mainly importing in the legal space, did this with a certain aid from the French Communist Party (which, due to its publishing structures and own periodicals and periodicals of its compagnons de route, played an important part in shaping ocial circulation23 ). Others authorities. Thus, we will still place these authors in the patrimonial circulation but we will call them `classics'. 22 A characteristic example is the complex and unclear status of Milosz's books published in French in 1953 by Gallimard. The writer himself recalls the birth of the originals and translations in this manner: This book [Zniewolony umysl ] was ready as early as at the beginning of 1952. (. . . ) I immediately translated this book into French dictating sentence by sentence to my friend Andre Prudhommeaux who had a good style but did not know Polish at all. This book was translated into French in this manner during 1952 and it was published in Polish in Kultura and in French by Gallimard at the same time. The translation of Zdobycie wladzy was born in a similar manner: (. . . ) my friend Jeanne Hersch convinced me to try. Thus, I wrote this novel in two months and translated it into French, i.e., I wrote a chapter before noon, and in the afternoon dictated it to her or she translated it into French (our translation). (Fiut 1988: 119-120). See also Furman-Bouvard (1998: 91-107); Popa (2010: 142-153); Franaszek (2011: 486-497). While the transfer of Zniewolony umysl may be considered as taking place in the parallel circulation (the publication of the original preceded the publication of the translation), Zdobycie wladzy taking into account the fact that the French version won the international literary award (Prix Litteraire Europeen) in a contest organized by Centre Europeen de la Culture for a previously unpublished novel in one of the Western European languages, and was published in 1953 and in Polish by the Literary Institute only two years later belongs rather to direct circulation. 23 In the case of Polish literature a telling example can be three anthologies pub-
Translating Polish Prose in France in 1945-2009
acting in the parallel circulation collaborated with new centers created by political exiles, which developed relations with intellectual circles in France and other European countries (e.g. the Instytut Literacki [Literary Institute], or the periodicals, such as Kultura, leading Polish emigre literary-political journal, and Preuves, French anti-communiste review founded by Francois Bondy). So, for example, the decision to publish the translation of Czapski's Na nieludzkiej ziemi or Milosz's Zniewolony umysl was not only the eect of the willingness to share with the French reader works describing the reality in a certain part of Europe. It may also be treated as a manifestation of an ideological attitude, often arousing controversies for this reason these publications included peritexts written by `patrons' (Halevy, Jaspers), which were supposed to anticipate possible attacks. In this manner, translated works became the tool in political or ideological struggle.
2.2. 1955-1974 Despite the fact that the Soviet Block opened to the West in the `post-thaw' period, as is evident, for instance, in the increase in the number of translations until the end of the 1960s (see gure 2), the circulations distinguished by Popa still coexisted. On the one hand this was due to the development of the emigre literature and to the entering into international circulation of many more works by eminent writers; on the other to the fact that authors living in Poland had limited access to translation. The list of Polish works made available to the French reader included, among others, the following authors: Andrzejewski, Kazimierz Brandys, Bratny, Breza, Hlasko, Dobraczy nski, Iwaszkiewicz, Konwicki, Kusniewicz, Lem, Parandowski, Piwowarczyk, Rutkiewicz, Sat Okh, Stryjkowski, Tyrmand (patrimonial and ocial circulation), as well as the deceased Borowski, Korczak, Schulz, Witkacy, and the `classic' Prus lished by Seghers. It should be noted that no publisher considered the Social-Realist literary production (the doctrine ocially introduced in Poland after 1949) worth publication. However, these works were widely translated into languages of countries behind the Iron Curtain. Take, for example, the history of the translation of Taduesz Konwicki's works (Skibi nska 2010: 155-173).
El zbieta Skibi nska
(legitimized space), and Milosz, Gombrowicz, Mackiewicz (space beyond the control of the Polish communist regime). Domestic writers were subject to state patronage on which the international exchange depended. One of its forms consisted in international contracts, which were also related to the sales of copyrights and the authors' international publishing contacts. From 1964 these matters were dealt with by the Authors' Agency, established to promote Polish art abroad. This mandatory agency (which used literature as a political and ideological tool) not only limited the selection of works oered to foreign publishers, making it dependent on factors far removed from literature, but also acted on behalf of the authors themselves24 . Among the emigre authors, Gombrowicz's works were translated most often25 ; in his case we may speak about a conscious translation policy being an element of the author's strategy in the struggle to leave the Argentinian cage (in which he stayed until 1963). Gombrowicz was convinced that he might enter the global literary republic only via consecration through translations into French. His letters to Konstanty Jele nski, his friend and `ambassador' in Paris, are full of comments on translation and translators: for me, translation, especially into French, is a matter too serious, he wrote in a letter dated July 195926 .
2.3. 1975-1989 After 1970-1974, when the number of translated books decreased slightly, we may observe an increase in interest after 1975. This may be related to the appearance of `Samizdat circulation' in Poland after 1976, which (partially) liberated the writers from censorship and opened pos24
See Stanislaw Mro zek's recollections in Baltazar. Autobiograa. 2006. Krakow, Noir sur Blanc. 226-228. 25 Selected: Ferdydurke 1958 (translated by Brone); 1973 (translated by Sedir); La pornographie 1962; Cosmos 1966; Bakaka 1967; Trans-Atlantique (1976). 26 dla mnie przeklad, zwlaszcza francuski, to rzecz za powa zna. (W. Gombrowicz. Walka o slawe . Korespondencja, cze sc druga: Witold Gombrowicz Konstanty A. Jele nski, Francois Bondy, Dominik de Roux. J. Jarze bski, ed. Wydawnictwo Literackie, Krak ow 1998). This correspondence also shows how few people could undertake to assimilate the works of Polish writers to the French readers.
Translating Polish Prose in France in 1945-2009
sibilities of translating the works of Polish authors regardless of political decisions or recommendations. The lists of books translated from Polish into French in this period reect this very well. Kazimierz Brandys' En Pologne, c'est-a-dire nulle part, the rst novel from the underground press, was published in 1978; in the 1980s French readers received novels by Konwicki27 , Rymkiewicz, Glowacki, Nowakowski, Andrzejewski and others. But the parallel circulation was still used to transfer the works of authors in exile: Milosz, Pankowski, Herling-Grudzi nski, Haupt and others. There was still the ocial and patrimonial circulation, which introduced the works of Lem, Kapusci nski, Szczypiorski, Iwaszkiewicz, Wojciechowski, Fialkowski and others, as well as S. I. Witkiewicz (Witkacy), Reymont, Orzeszkowa or Sienkiewicz. However, it was the space beyond communist control that supplied the vast majority of almost 80 titles of Polish translations present in the catalogoues of French publishers in the 1980s. The quantitative increase shown in Figure 1 was largely inuenced by the political events in 1980 (emergence of the Solidarity movement) and 1981 (declaration of the Martial Law), and the Nobel Prize for Literature for Czeslaw Milosz (1980). For some time they were the reason why Poland and Polish literature were `fashionable'. Thus, it was politics again that aected the presence of Polish works in France. However, this time it was a `natural' inuence and not one resulting mainly from an instrumentalised treatment of literature and translation.
2.4. 1990-2009 The much more signicant presence of Polish prose translations from the mid-1980s onwards seems a permanent phenomenon (Figure 1), even if it is subject to uctuations (Figure 2). The breakthrough of the year 1989 was, of course, of certain signicance. The loosening of censorship 27
The translation of his Mala apokalipsa was the starting point for this novel's international career. The example of Tadeusz Konwicki (as well as Kazimierz Brandys and Jerzy Andrzejewski) is characteristic also because it demonstrates the transition of translations of his works between various circulations, from legitimized space into space beyond control (and the other way round), which resulted from his political choices and from Poland's political situation (Skibi nska 2010).
El zbieta Skibi nska
and other political conditions, as well as at least in the rst years after 1989 the attractiveness of Central and Eastern European countries were reected in the number of translated books. However, the most important change concerned the translational transfer where the division into legitimized and non-legitimized space ended. It should be emphasized that although Polish literature of this period is no longer divided into domestic and emigre literature, it still has two places of origin: Poland and other countries, and its development in various places all over the world is not identical (Zduniak-Wiktorowicz 2012: 131-140). The political shift, the free trade, the freedom of travelling (which cumulatively led to an intensive migration of Poles) and, most importantly, the development of communication technologies caused major changes in the functioning of these complementary domains and turned them into a part of the global publishing movement. That is why the authors of more than 200 translations published in French in 1990-2009 (an average of approx. 10 translations per year) include such various authors as: Rymkiewicz, Terlecki, Konwicki, Scibor-Rylski, Parnicki, Iwaszkiewicz, Grynberg, Krall, Krajewski, Fredro, Haupt, Karpi nski, Korczak, Odojewski, Olczak-Roniker, Pasek, Piasecki, Sapkowski, Stasiuk, Klimko-Dobrzaniecki, Tokarczuk, Tuszy nska, Wilk, Amejko, Kapuci nski, Mentzel, Maslowska, Szczygiel, Grynberg, Kuczok, Tulli, Witkowski, Tryzna, Huelle, Werbowski, Henczel, Coryell, Pokas, Scarron junior, Nurowska, etc. French readers receive many of their works almost at the same time as Polish readers28 . The disappearance of Polish institutions controlling or rationing the access of Polish writers to translations based on ideological or political criteria does not mean, however, that the choices foreign publishers (French in this case) can make are not subject to any factors on the side of the `exporter'. These factors, however, are dierent because their purpose as in other countries is to promote Polish literature all over the world. The activity of the Ministry of Culture, and the Instytut Ksia
zki [Book Institute] (programs Translator's Collegium, the @POLAND Translation Program, Sample Translations @POLAND, the 28 New translations of classical Polish literature (the works of Kochanowski, Slowacki, Mickiewicz, Fredro) are not taken into account here.
Translating Polish Prose in France in 1945-2009
catalog New Books from Poland, awards for translators Transatlantyk and FOUND IN TRANSLATION), in promoting publishers and authors during international book fairs, etc. may have a certain eect on the content of the list of Polish works translated into French29 . Still, the dynamics of the last two decades are shaped, rst of all, by phenomena typical of the development of the French publishing market (e.g. the book production crisis in 1991/2, more and more intensive concentration mechanisms, the increasingly noticeable presence of large nancial groups investing in publishing activities after 2000, the focus on prot as one of the most important driving forces behind publishing activities30 ). In this market, the abundance of translations of Polish literature is part of the broad trend of translations from other Central and Eastern European literatures, and this trend is part of the above-mentioned growing wave of translations tout court (see Popa 2009).
3. Who publishes Polish prose in France and why? The observations noted above relate, rst of all, to the `content' of the translation import from Poland to France. However, we should remember that the main decision-maker in this domain is the publisher because s/he has according to Bourdieu an extraordinary power to make a publication happen, namely to make the text and the author present to the public 31 (our translation). We should, therefore, look at the publishing houses that include translations of Polish novels in their catalogues. They may be divided into three categories: 29
Subsidies to translations into French in France amount to 6 % of funds granted by the Polish Book Institute (80 out of 1302). Accessed on December 12, 2012 (http://www.instytutksiazki.pl/pl,ik,site,12,28,10019.php). 30 As A. Schirin observes, the required prot changed from 3-4 % to 14-16 % (quoted after Cachin, Bruyere: 523). At the same time, we should note that translations of Polish literature are sometimes subsidized by CNL in the discussed period; for instance: in 1997, the subsidized authors were Hanna Krall, Olga Tokarczuk, Tadeusz Pankiewicz (this amounts to 2.2 % of the overall number of subsidies granted to translations of foreign literatures); in 2004-2008, nancing for 12 publications from the Polish language was granted (Assouline 2011: 158). 31 (. . . ) l'editeur est celui qui a le pouvoir tout a fait extraordinaire d'assurer la publication, c'est a dire de faire acceder un texte et un auteur a l'existence publique (Bourdieu, 1999: 3).
El zbieta Skibi nska
1. Large publishing houses, with high economic and symbolic capital (often based on the continuity of the family management), with great power to consecrate the author in the world republic of letters, such as Gallimard, Le Seuil, Flammarion, Laont; 2. Medium-sized and small publishing houses, established in the 1970s and later, with a well-established reputation, often `specializing' in translations from specic languages or cultures (Actes Sud, L'Age d'Homme, Noir sur Blanc, Aube, Liana Levi, Maren Sell, Sabine Wespieser and others); 3. Small publishing houses specializing in specic literary genres, e.g. science ction and/or fantasy (Fleuve Noir, Bragelonne) (see also Popa 2009). In order to determine the existence of a correlation between the authors and the publishers of the translations of their works, very detailed analyses would be necessary. As may be easily seen, in 1945-1954 publishers such as Seghers or Editeurs francais reunis published several works of authors considered `right' from their ideological point of view, but Gallimard's catalogue includes the works of Milosz or Rudnicki next to the novels of Andrzejewski and Bratny. In the case of some publishing houses, we may speak about specialization: Calmann-Levy publishes the works of Lem, who was previously introduced into the French market by Denoel; both publishing houses issue the works of this master of science ction in the series Dimensions S.F. and Presence du futur, respectively. We may also see a certain stability of the relationship between Rudnicki or Andrzejewski with Gallimard, Kusniewicz and Mro zek with Albin Michel or Pankowski with Actes Sud. In general, it is not easy to identify clear relationships between publishers and authors. The correlation between names of the authors and the number of their books published in France is also far from obvious. The lists of the authors' names presented above but not covering all Polish prose writers translated into French may be surprising: next to the most important names of the contemporary Polish literature (those who have entered the contemporary world canon, such as Witold Gombrowicz, Czeslaw Milosz, Bruno Schulz, Stanislaw Lem, Ryszard Kapusci nski, www.clepul.eu
Translating Polish Prose in France in 1945-2009
Gustaw Herling-Grudzi nski, Andrzej Sapkowski, as well as those canonical in Poland: Tadeusz Konwicki, Pawel Huelle, Hanna Krall, Teodor Parnicki, Olga Tokarczuk, Andrzej Stasiuk, to name just a few) there are also others less known (Werbowski, Henczel, Coryell, Pokas, Scarron junior). They are unlikely to expand the publisher's symbolic or economic capital. What was then the criterion for editorial choices? A text will be translated more willingly if it corresponds to the expectations of the recipient country, according to Cachin and Bruyere (2001)32 (our translation). If we adopt the readers' demand as the criterion, we could assume that the translations available on the market are supposed to satisfy the curiosity of readers interested in books concerning the Holocaust, Polish-Jewish relations, etc. (Fink, Krall, Grynberg, Olczak-Ronikier, Rymkiewicz, Szczypiorski, Tuszy nska, Nurowska, Werbowski); another group of translated books are those on Soviet deportations and life of prisoners in Siberia. We may also speak about revealing the latest achievements of Polish literature to the French reader, as well as about reminding former works. These are, however, very hypothetical assumptions. We could as well emphasize the role of randomness, resulting in the fact that next to items of obvious valeur sure (books from authors who enjoy a well-established position, conrmed by, e.g., international or domestic literary awards or a longer presence in the publisher's catalogue), there are also items of mass or popular literature. However, it would be dicult to indicate an outstanding Polish author who was completely ignored in the French catalogue of translations.
4. Conclusion The title of this study indicates three factors that may aect publishing mechanisms: politics, economy, consecration. Without weakening the signicance of the third factor (the very fact that a work has been translated into a foreign language means it is introduced into the international circulation and gives the author and his works a chance to be32
Un texte sera plus volontiers traduit s'il correspond a l'horizon d'attente du pays d'accueil (Cachin, Bruyere 2001: 511).
El zbieta Skibi nska
come present outside his country/language), the example of translation import of Polish prose to France clearly demonstrates a more signicant action of the political factor in an age when the Iron Curtain divided Europe, and the economic factor when the Iron Curtain fell. This does not mean, however, that each factor operates in isolation: they form an aggregate as is shown by the case of Milosz, Gombrowicz or Konwicki of elements from various domains of the life of individuals, societies, countries and cultures meeting through translation.
References Assouline, Pierre. 2011. La condition du traducteur, Paris: CNL. Accessed on December 8, 2012. http://en.calameo.com/read/001828715ed4663320881. Beres, Stanislaw. 2002. Szuada z Atlantydy, Wroclaw. DWE. Bilikiewicz-Blanc, Danuta, et al. 2005. Literatura polska w przekladach: 1981-2004. Warszawa: Biblioteka Narodowa. Bobowicz, Zoa. 1998. Un point de vue d'editeur. Maryla Laurent, ed. La litterature polonaise en France. D'une selection politique des oeuvres a traduire au miroir deformant de la traduction. Lille: Universite Charles de Gaulle Lille 3. 119-123. Bourdieu, Pierre. 1999. Une revolution conservatrice dans l'edition. Actes de la recherche en sciences sociales 126/127. 3-28. Cachin, Marie- Francoise, Claire Bruyere. 2001. La traduction au carrefour des cultures. Michon Jacques, Jean-Yves Mollier, eds. Les mutations du livre et de l'edition dans le monde du 18e siecle a l'an 2000. Paris-Laval: L'Harmattan-Presses de l'Universite de Laval. 506- 525. Casanova, Pascale. 1999. La Republique mondiale de lettres. Paris: Le Seuil. Casanova, Pascale. 2002. Consecration et accumulation de capital litteraire. La traduction comme echange inegal. Actes de la recherche en sciences sociales 144. 720. Casanova, Pascale. 2007. The World Republic of Letters. Translated by M. B. DeBevoise. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Chevrel, Yves, Lieven D'hulst, Christine Lombez, eds. 2012. Histoire des traductions en langue francaise. Dix-neuvieme siecle (1815-1914). Lagrasse: Verdier. Chevrel, Yves. 1988. Les traductions et leur role dans le systeme litteraire francais. Harald Kittel ed. Die literarische Uebersetzung. Stand und Perspektiven ihrer Eforschung. Berlin: Schmidt Verlag. 37-38.
El zbieta Skibi nska
Chevrel, Yves. 1989. Is there a Future for the Study of Translated Literature?. Revue de Litterature Comparee 250. 2. 141-145. Colas, Daniel. 1992. Les politiques d'aide. Francoise Barret-Ducrocq, ed., Traduire l'Europe. Paris : Payot. 97-124. Even-Zohar, Itamar. 1990. The Position of Translated Literature within the Literary Polysystem. Poetics Today 11 (1). 45-53. Fiut, Aleksander. 1988. Czeslawa Milosza autoportret przekorny. Krakow: Wydawnictwo Literackie. Franaszek, Andrzej. 2011. Milosz. Biograa. Krak ow: Znak. Furman-Bouvard, Marie. 1998. L'oeuvre de Czeslaw Milosz en francais. Maryla Laurent, ed. La litterature polonaise en France. D'une selection politique des oeuvres a traduire au miroir deformant de la traduction. Lille Universite Charles de Gaulle Lille 3. 91 -107. Ganne, Valerie, Marc Minon. 1992. Geographies de la traduction. Francoise Barret-Ducrocq, ed. Traduire l'Europe. Paris: Payot. 55-95. Heilbron, Johan. 1999. Towards a Sociology of Translation: Book Translations as a Cultural World-System. European Journal of Social Theory 2 (4). 429-444. Kurek, Marcin. 2009. Przypisy tlumacza w hiszpa nskich przeladach wspolczesnej literatury polskiej. El zbieta Skibi nska, ed. Przypisy tlumacza. Wroclaw Krakow: Ksie garnia Akademicka. 82-83. Mollier Jean-Yves. 2009. Les strategies des groupes de communication a l'oree du XXe siecle. Gisele Sapiro, ed. Les contradictions de la globalisation editoriale, Paris: Nouveau Monde editions, 2009. 27-43. Mollier Jean-Yves. 2012. Naissance, developpement et mutations de l'edition de l'Encyclopedie de Diderot a Internet. Accessed on December 8, 2012. http://www.imageson.org/document571.html. Morrison, Daniel, Antoine Compagnon. 2008. Que reste-t-il de la culture francaise ? Paris: Denoel. Popa, Ioana. 2009. Importer en provenance d'espaces `peripheriques'. L'accueil editorial des litteratures d'Europe de l'Est en France (1970-2000). Gisele Sapiro, ed. Les contradictions de la globalisation editoriale. Paris: Nouveau Monde editions. 369-401. Popa, Ioana. 2010. Traduire sous contraintes. Litterature et communisme (1947-1989). Paris: Editions CNRS. www.clepul.eu
Translating Polish Prose in France in 1945-2009
Prungnaud, Joelle. 1994. La traduction du roman gothique anglais en France au tournant du XVIIIe siecle. TTR: Traduction, Terminologie, Redaction 7 (1). 11-46. Pym, Anthony. 1998. Method in Translation History. Manchester: St. Jerome Publishing. Rocznik Polonica Zagraniczne. 1956-1989. Ryll, Ludomira, Janina Wilgat. 1972. Polska literatura w przekladach: 1945-1970. Warszawa: Agencja Autorska. Sapiro, Gisele. 2002. L'importation de la litterature hebraique en France: Entre universalisme et communautarisme. Actes de la recherche en sciences sociales 144: 80-98. Sapiro, Gisele, Anais Bokobza. 2008. L'essor des traductions litteraires en francais. Gisele Sapiro, ed. 2008. Translatio. Le marche de la traduction en France a l'heure de la mondialisation, Paris: Editions CNRS. 2. 145-173. Sapiro, Gisele. 2008. Situation du francais sur le marche mondial de la traduction. Gisele Sapiro, ed. Translatio. Le marche de la traduction en France a l'heure de la mondialisation. Paris: Editions CNRS. 65-106. Sapiro, Gisele. 2009. Mondialisation et diversite culturelle. Gisele Sapiro, ed. Les contradictions de la globalisation editoriale. Paris: Nouveau Monde editions. 275-301. Serry, Herve. 2002. Constituer un catalogue litteraire. La place des traductions dans l'histoire des Editions du Seuil. Actes de la recherche en sciences sociales 144. 70-79. Skibi nska, El zbieta. 2006. Autor de la retraduction. Sur l'exemple am, ed. Verbum des traductions francaises de Pan Tadeusz . Anik o Ad Analecta Neolatina VIII.2. 391-406. Skibi nska, El zbieta. 2010. Tadeusz Konwicki sur la carte du monde des traductions ou la traduction et l'ideologie. Syn Theses. Revue annuelle du Departement de Langue et de Litterature Francaises de l'Universite Aristote de Thessalonique (Grece) 3. 155-173. Skibi nska, El zbieta. 2014. Traduire par temps de ruptures, ou comment la collection Pavillons/Domaine de l'Est (Robert Laont, 19802003) a oriente l'image de la litterature est-europeenne en France. Maryla Laurent, ed. Traduction et ruptures. Paris: Numilog. 259-275.
El zbieta Skibi nska
Tymoczko, Maria. 2007. Enlarging Translation, Empowering Translators. Manchester: St. Jerome Publishing. Zaboklicka, Bo zena. 2010. Literatura polska w Hiszpanii: Obecna lecz nieznana. Ryszard Nycz, Wladyslaw Miodunka, Tomasz Kunz, ed. Polonistyka bez granic. Krakow: Universitas. 571-580. Zduniak-Wiktorowicz, Malgorzata. 2012. Trans/supra/amigracja? O nowej pozie polskiej pisanej spoza kraju. Wlodzimierz Bolecki, Ewa Kraskowska eds., Kultura w stanie przekladu. Translatologia-komparatystyka-transkulturowosc, Warszawa: IBL PAN. 131-140. Wilgat, Janina. 1965. Literatura polska w swiecie: Bibliograa przekladow, 1945-1961. Warszawa: Penclub.
Notes on contributors and editors (in alphabetic order)
Aleksei Semenenko is Associate Professor at the Slavic Department of Stockholm University and lecturer in semiotics at the Department of Media and Communication Studies at Sodertorn University. He holds a PhD in Russian Literature from Stockholm University. He is the editor of Aksenov and the Environs (with Lars Kleberg; Sodertorns hogskola, 2012) and the author of Russian Translations of Hamlet and Literary Canon Formation (Stockholm University, 2007), The Texture of Culture: An Introduction to Yuri Lotman's Semiotic Theory (Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2012), and other works on translation, literature and semiotics. Bo zena Anna Zaboklicka Zakwaska is a Professor of Polish Literature and Literary Translation at the University of Barcelona and a researcher at the University of Barcelona and at the University Pompeu Fabra (Barcelona). She holds a MA in Spanish Studies from the Warsaw University and a PhD in Slavonic Philology from the University of Barcelona. Her research interests cover translation history, indirect translation and translation and interculturality. She has published a number of research articles that appeared in several collective volumes. She is currently a member of the CRET research group dedicated to translation and interculturality at the University of Barcelona and an investigator in a project of the TRILCAT research group that studies translation, reception and relationship between the literatures in the Catalan cultural eld. She is also a translator from Polish into Spanish and Catalan of several Polish literary authors, such as Gombrowicz, Mro zek, Kusniewicz, Konwicki, Nalkowska and Iwaszkiewicz.
Notes on contributors and editors
Brian James Baer is Professor of Russian and Translation Studies
at Kent State University and a member of the university's Institute for Applied Linguistics. He teaches translation-related courses at the undergraduate, Master's and doctoral levels. He is founding editor of the journal Translation and Interpreting Studies (TIS) and general editor of the Kent State Scholarly Monograph Series in Translation Studies. He is author of the monograph Other Russias: Homosexuality and the Crisis of Post-Soviet Identity (Palgrave Macmillan, 2009), which was selected as a Choice Outstanding Academic Title by the American Library Association in 2011. His most recent publications include the edited volumes Contexts, Subtexts, Pretexts: Literary Translation in Eastern Europe and Russia (Benjamins, 2011), No Good without Reward: The Selected Writings of Liubov Krichevskaya (University of Toronto, 2011), Russian Writers on Translation. An Anthology (St. Jerome, 2013), and The Unpredictable Workings of Culture (University of Tallinn, 2013), a translation of Juri Lotman's nal book-length work.
El zbieta Skibi nska is a Professor at the Institute of Romance
Languages, University of Wroclaw. She teaches translation theory and practice. Her research interests focus on linguistic and socio-cultural aspects of translation. She has published a number of research articles, the monograph Przeklad a kultura: Elementy kulturowe we francuskich tlumaczeniach Â˝Pana Tadeusza (Translation and Culture: Cultural Elements in French Translations of Pan Tadeusz) and Kuchnia tlumacza (The Translator's Kitchen: Studies on Polish-French Translational Relations) and edited several collective volumes, including Przypisy tlumacza (The Translator's Footnotes), Parateksty przekladu (Translation Paratexts), Figure(s) du traducteur. She is the director of the Doctorate School at Faculty of Letters, coordinator of the Polish-French research network Traduction comme moyen de communication interculturelle and a member of the international research group Voice in Translation.
Hanna Pie ta is a postdoctoral researcher at the University of Lisbon Centre for English Studies (ULICES/CEAUL). She holds a MA in Portuguese Studies form the Jagiellonian University, Krakow, and a PhD in Translation History from the University of Lisbon. Her research www.clepul.eu
Notes on contributors and editors
interests cover translation history, indirect translation and terminology in Translation Studies. She has published a number of research articles (e.g., Target 24:2, Cadernos de Traduc ao 28:2) and co-edited several collective volumes. She is currently a Principal Investigator in a project IndirecTrans2 (together with Rita Maia), a member of the European Society for Translation Studies (EST) Glossary Committee and an executive member of the International Society for Iberian-Slavonic Studies (CompaRes). She is also a qualied translator from Polish and English into Portuguese (and vice-versa).
Jaroslav Spirk (b. 1980) studied translation and conference inter-
preting at Charles University, Prague. In his MA thesis, he explored the contribution of Anton Popovic to Translation Studies. His paper on the topic was published in Target 21:1 (2009). As a doctoral student of Charles University, Jaroslav became co-aliated with the University of Lisbon. His Ph.D. thesis, written in English, focused on the reception of Czech literature in 20th-century Portugal via translation, investigating concepts such as ideology, censorship, non-translation, indirect translation, paratexts and cultural relations between two medium-sized linguaand socio-cultures in general. His rst monograph, based on his doctoral thesis, was published by Cambridge Scholars Publishing. Since October 2011, Jaroslav has been teaching translation and interpreting at the Institute of Translation Studies at Charles University.
Maria Lin Moniz is a member of the Research Centre for Communication and Culture, Catholic University of Portugal, where she is one of the scientic coordinators of the research project Intercultural Literature in Portugal 1930-2000: A Critical Bibliography and also participates in the project Translation and Censorship in Portugal during the Estado Novo Regime (1930-1974). She has a two-year post-graduation course in Translation (English and German) and a PhD in Translation Studies (2006), with a dissertation on The Great War Narratives in Portuguese Translations. She was part of the team working on Literary History and Translation: Representations of the Other in the Portuguese Culture, from 1999 to 2005 and she is co-editor of the volumes Hist orias Literarias Comparadas (Compared Literary Histories ) (2001), Translawww.lusosoa.net
Notes on contributors and editors
tion and Censorship in Dierent Times and Landscapes (2008), Traduzir em Portugal durante o Estado Novo (Translating in Portugal during the `Estado Novo' Regime ) (2009) and Translation in Anthologies and Collections (19 th and 20 th Centuries) (2013). She has also been working as a translator.
Martin Ringmar is a translator from Icelandic and other languages
into Swedish, and a teacher of Swedish at Lund University. He holds a BA in Icelandic/Finnish from the University of Iceland in Reykjavik and a MA in Scandinavian languages from the University of Ume a. His PhD thesis (forthcoming) investigates the interrelation between the mainland Nordic translations of Halld or Laxness's novel Salka Valka, as well as the relations between the agents involved. He has published several research articles on topics like indirect translation (e.g., Relay Translation in John Benjamins Handbook of Translation Studies ), retranslation, peripheral communication within a Nordic translation system (e.g., trans-kom 1:2), as well as on Laxness's relations with his foreign translators.
Pieter Boulogne (b. 1982) holds a PhD degree in Slavonic Studies. Currently, he works as a post-doctoral assistant at the University of Leuven, as a lecturer at the University of Antwerp and as a visiting professor at Ghent University. As such, he teaches a large variety of Bachelor and Master courses, dealing with Russian language, culture, translation and literature, and with community interpreting. His main research interests lie at the crossroads of Russian literature and Translation Studies. In 2011, his dissertation Het temmen van de Scyth (Taming the Scythian ), about the early Dutch reception of Dostoevsky, was brought out by Pegasus. Outside academia he occasionally works as a community interpreter. He regularly reviews belles-lettres from Russia. Recently, he translated from Russian into Dutch a selection of poems, essays and actions by the Russian poet and activist Kirill Medvedev under the title Alles is slecht (Everything is bad ). Teresa Seruya is Full Professor in the Department of Germanic Studies at the Arts Faculty of the University of Lisbon, teaching German www.clepul.eu
Notes on contributors and editors
and Austrian literature and culture, history of translation and translation theory, translation methodologies and intercultural communication. She has collaborated with the Catholic University of Portugal. She is responsible (together with Alexandra Rosa) for the ongoing research project Intercultural Literature in Portugal 1930-2000: a Critical Bibliography within the CECC Centre for the Study of Communication and Culture. She has published on contemporary German literature, migration literature and on the history of translation in Portugal. She is also a literary translator of the following German authors: Goethe, Kleist, Leopold von Sacher-Masoch, Doblin, Thomas Mann and Kafka.
Ventsislav Iko is a PhD student at the Department of Transla-
tion of the Pompeu Fabra University in Barcelona, Spain. His current research project is on the cultural relations through literary translation between Bulgaria and the Spanish-speaking world from the end of the 19th century to present. He holds a Master's degree in Translation Studies from Pompeu Fabra University. His research interests lie in sociology of translation, cultural history and literary and cultural relations between Bulgaria and the Spanish-speaking world. He has authored an article on the Spanish translation of the novel Under the Yoke by famous Bulgarian writer Ivan Vazov (1850-1921) and has translated into Bulgarian (with Maia Guenova) two books of famous Catalan authors Merce Rodoreda and Jordi Punt.
This publication was funded by National Funds through the FCT - Fundacao para a Ciencia e a Tecnologia under the Project UID/ELT/00077/2013
IberoSlavica is an international peer-reviewed journal published annually and bringing to the fore the complex issues inherent in the encounters between Iberian and Slavonic cultures. It is meant as a platform for Iberian-Slavonic researchers in Portugal and worldwide. This yearbook is promoted by:
CompaRes – International Society for Iberian-Slavonic Studies; Research Group CLEPUL5 – Iberian-Slavonic Interculturality, belonging to the Centre for Lusophone and European Literatures and Cultures of the Faculty of Letters of the University of Lisbon (CLEPUL) CISCR-ICS – Commission for Iberian-Slavonic Comparative Research at the International Committee of Slavists welcomes contributions from all areas of Iberian-Slavonic comparative research. For further details on editing rules and deadlines, please visit: www.iberian-slavonic.org. Any further enquiries and publishing materials should be sent to: firstname.lastname@example.org.
Special Issue: Translation in Iberian-Slavonic Cultural Exchange and Beyond The discipline of Iberian-Slavonic Studies has traditionally shown little interest in the concept of translation. Translation Studies, too, have seldom been interested in systematic exploring and theorizing translation between Iberian and Slavonic languages. While the intersection of these two disciplines is still largely uncharted, its exploration can inspire innovation in both translation and Iberian-Slavonic research. This special issue is considered a foray into this largely uncharted territory. Its purpose is twofold. On the one hand, it intends to showcase, raise the profile and bring to the attention of a readership in Iberian-Slavonic Studies the work of researchers in Translation Studies who look into Iberian-Slavonic literary transfers. On the other hand, this collection of papers means to foreground selected areas researched in the framework of Translation Studies that can be of particular interest to scholars working in Iberian-Slavonic Studies (such as censorship, indirect translation or power relations between centres and peripheries)
The discipline of Iberian-Slavonic Studies has traditionally shown little interest in the concept of translation. Translation Studies, too,...
Published on May 2, 2016
The discipline of Iberian-Slavonic Studies has traditionally shown little interest in the concept of translation. Translation Studies, too,...